Newer
Daily Link Roundup: Aging Baboons Older
I Am Officially a Vegetarian

A Dad's View of Circumcision

by Daddy Scratches on September 29, 2009 — Comments (13)

My wife and I were concerned that our son might one day develop an ear infection, and our research indicated that, although extremely rare, it is possible for an ear infection to lead to more serious health problems ... so, just hours after he was born, we had a doctor cut off his ears.

Completely insane, right? Then can someone please tell me how it ever became “routine” for parents to have part of their newborn sons' penises lopped off?

The entire premise seems unconscionable to me. I’m supposed to believe that a healthy baby boy is perfect in every way except for that piece of skin covering the head of his penis? The same piece of skin that every baby boy is born with? Sorry; I’m not buying it.

When my wife was pregnant with our first child, she decided that, seeing as how I'm the one equipped with a penis, she would leave to me the decision about what to do with our son's.

Full disclosure: My parents had the newborn me circumcised. I was born in 1970, a year that marked the beginning of a decade during which, according to Wikipedia, 91% of all male babies born in the U.S. were circumcised. I don't blame my parents for their decision, given how prevalent male circumcision was at the time. That said, if given the chance for a do-over, I'd opt for staying intact.

As for my son, I had pretty much made up my mind from the word "go," but I still did some research before setting anything in stone.

One of the pro-circumcision arguments I heard was that removing my son's foreskin would remove with it the possibility that he would experience confusion or negative feelings about the fact that he looked different from his circumcised father. This did nothing to sway me any more than if I'd lost a limb earlier in life and someone suggested that, for uniformity's sake, I have that same limb removed from my infant son's body.

A related pro-circumcision argument I heard was that my uncircumcised son might feel embarrassed or self-conscious when the day comes that he shares a locker room with his circumcised peers. This also didn't move me. I figured that, by the time he's old enough to be in a locker room, he and I will have long ago discussed his uncircumcised penis, and that, in general, if his mother and I have done a relatively good job of parenting him up to that point, he'll be comfortable with himself regardless. I also weighed in the fact that, thankfully, my generation seems to be less inclined to circumcise than was my parents' generation (the previously referenced Wikipedia entry notes that circumcision of newborns in the U.S. had dropped to about 56% in 2003, the year my son was born), so it seemed like a safe bet that he wouldn't be the only uncut guy in the locker room.

Other pro-circumcision arguments included findings about a decreased risk of contracting or passing along sexually transmitted diseases, but other corollary factors — to include the population used in the studies (one of the more widely referenced studies was conducted in the third-world country of Uganda) — caused me to question the applicability of those arguments as regarded my son, and proponents on both sides of the issue admit that practicing safe sex plays a far greater role in preventing the spread of STDs ... so, again, I was far from convinced that circumcision was the answer.

And not that I needed any further convincing from the anti-circumcision crowd, but if I had, the potentially disastrous results of a botched circumcision would have been more than enough to persuade me. I can hardly imagine the guilt I would have felt if I had subjected my son to an unnecessary surgical procedure that had resulted in a bad outcome (and I'd argue that having part of your penis cut off is a bad outcome in and of itself). The thought of electively doing something to a newborn that could result in excessive bleeding, infection, or death, or that for the rest of his life could affect his ability to function sexually, was unacceptable, no matter how infinitesimal the odds of such an occurrence might be. Those odds dropped to zero when I decided to not have him circumcised. That was good enough for me.

There are those who circumcise for religious reasons. Personally, I would no sooner cut off part of my healthy son's penis in the name of religion than would I denounce homosexuals or expect women to wear burkhas ... but I also don't (and wouldn't) follow a religion that asked me to do any of the above, so that never factored into the equation.

Bottom line: none of the pro-circumcision arguments did anything that made me believe flouting nature and mutilating my son's penis was a good idea.

I subscribe to the belief that circumcision began as a non-medically based, ritualistic procedure, and that its proliferation was based, in part, on an agenda of curbing male masturbation and/or sexual behavior. Perhaps some medically based benefits of the procedure have since been discovered, but I don't believe those potential benefits justify circumcision any more than I believe eliminating tooth decay and gum disease is a convincing argument for removing all of one's teeth.

"He's going to realize he looks different from you," my wife said when I informed her of my decision. "And he's going to ask you about it."

And, by the time he was five, he did ... and I handled it just as I had told her I would.

"Daddy, yours looks different from mine," he said. "Why does the end look different?"

"Well, when daddy was a baby, a lot of people believed it was a good idea to take off the skin that covers the end of a boy's penis, so that's what the doctor did to me. When you were born, though, we knew there was no reason to do that. You're perfect just the way you are."

Jon blogs at Daddy Scratches.

Keywords

Parenting

13 Comments

EmmieB

We are currently pondering this decision (our first child - a boy - will be born in January) and like your wife I've decided that the ultimate decision lies with my husband, since I don't have a penis. Thank you for sharing your story.

Tue, 2009-09-29 13:40

Loqi

Your husband has his own penis, though his parents may not have seen it that way. Your son will have his own penis too. You might disagree with your husband's decision. But more importantly, your son might disagree with it. Please, don't go with the one that can't be undone.

It's a common coping strategy for an American woman to want to stay out of this circumcision mess. Imagine a Sudanese man saying, "I'll leave the decision up to my wife. After all, I don't have girly-bits, she does (mostly)." Well, in cultures where girls are cut, it's the women who principally do the chasing, holding down, and cutting.

Protect your son, Emmie, or you might find him writing stuff like this on the Internet of 2030.

Wed, 2009-09-30 10:39

Rebel With a Di...

I REGRET having my son circ'd. I left it up to my husband. I think it caused my son to pull away from us more. He didn't really want to be held or loved on after that. He refused to breast feed...it was terrible. Now, 4 years later, I doubt he remembers or cares, but I would give a lot to be able to go back and undo it.

Wed, 2009-09-30 06:02

EmmieB

Loqi - while I do agree that it's something I should weigh in on, and I see what you're saying about doing something that can't be undone... comparing male and female circumcision is unfair. Leaving foreskin on can lead to infection (non-STD infections) and require the surgery be done later. Leaving female genitals intact does not have the same risk. In fact - I'd say that female circumcision is closer to removing the entire penis because the aim is to remove pleasure and ensure virginity. A VERY different approach from ensuring cleanliness.

While I'm aware of the dangers involved with circumcisions and I know a good number of uncircumcised adults...and I'm leaning towards leaving him whole... my husband will be the one who will ultimately have those talks with our son.

FWIW - my sister has shared her own opinion: an uncircumcised penis is more fun to play with. (She says of her husband)

Wed, 2009-09-30 11:44

Loqi

There is a broad range of cuttings done to little girls throughout the world, from a ritual pinprick or a tiny slit in the prepuce, on up through cutting off all the external structures and suturing everything together. The practice of child genital cutting (male or female) follows a strong correlation with sex-phobic cultures. As the U.S. moved from the Victorian era to post-sexual revolution times, the practice has steadily been abandoned. The primary motivation for cutting either gender is to reduce sexual function and enjoyment. But an endless parade of rationales are back-filled to support the continuation of the practice. When one is debunked, a new one takes its place for a few years. And of course, there's always fear. After a generation or two of cut willies, fathers are afraid they don't know how to care for a whole one. Or they're afraid to acknowledge that what happened to them was wrong.

There are studies to support claims that cut females are less likely to contract HIV.
http://www.aegis.com/conferences/IASHIVPT/2005/TuOa0401.html

"CONCLUSIONS: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum."

Fortunately, our culture doesn't accept such findings as justification for cutting children's genetalia, so long as those children are girls. We're advanced enough to see that—even if such a study is credible—trading the future sexual function of a future woman for the future STI risk reduction of that future woman is a decision for that future woman in the future.

While I'm glad to know you're not contemplating cutting off an entire penis, I would remind you that the penis at issue is not not yours, and is not your husband's. I'm glad to hear that someone you know enjoys whole penises, but that shouldn't matter at all. What matters is your son's preference. I just hope it's not too late when he's old enough to form his own opinion.

Please consider protecting your baby boy.

Thu, 2009-10-01 21:09

Loqi

"Leaving foreskin on can lead to infection (non-STD infections) and require the surgery be done later."

I think you're saying that circumcision is a therapeutic treatment for UTI. Well, I suppose it is in the United States. but in Europe, the treatment for UTI is antibiotics. We don't use amputation to treat infection in any other part of the body unless the body part can't be saved.

If you decide to let your husband approve your son's cutting, he might want to start thinking now about what to say to him in the case that he grows up to resent it. Your grown-up son might also want to know why his mother went along with it. Telling him you didn't have a penis of your own might placate him. Or it might not.

When I confronted my parents, they told me they went along with what the doctors were pushing. That made me angry at the doctors. I wasn't angry at my parents, just disappointed in their judgment.

Thu, 2009-10-01 22:00

Kait

Emmie, while you're right that leaving the foreskin on can lead to infections, I think it's a stupid reason to chop off a part of your child's penis. I have to teach my daughters to keep their genitals clean to avoid infection. I don't understand why it's okay to put your child through an unnecessary surgery so that you don't have to teach them to keep themselves clean.

And as for all the worries about baby looking different than Dad, my parents opted to not circumcise my brother even though my father had been circumcised. My brother asked once why he looked different than Daddy and that was it. Once he was of an age where he was in a locker room with other boys, getting caught looking at another boys penis was enough to get you taunted for years so if anyone ever noticed, they never said anything.

I have two daughters but if we ever have a son, I will treat it the same way I treat my girls - as far as I am concerned, their body is their own. I haven't pierced my daughters ears (although I will let them when they ask to) and I haven't forced them to undergo elective surgery, so why would I do it to a son?

Thu, 2009-10-01 10:19

Loqi

I'm glad your father was man enough not to be threatened by your brother's whole penis, Kait.

If Emmie is concerned about infection, it just doesn't seem like a great plan to have an open wound in a soiled diaper. The neonatal rate of urinary tract infections is about 1% among uncut boys. The rate of "complications" of circumcision is 1 to 5%, depending on whose numbers you believe. But weighing such numbers only makes sense after one has first concluded that the foreskin is worthless. I suggest she google "foreskin function" before deciding that someone else's foreskin has no value. Even so, would any sane parent cut off a healthy baby's earlobes or little toes if the numbers add up to a lower risk of this or that infection? Of course not.

Thu, 2009-10-01 22:06

EmmieB

I'm so glad that what started as sharing opinions has turned into you telling me what to do with my son's penis. Not my penis, not my husband's penis. Not YOUR penis, not your son's penis.

You have weighed in.

I have weighed in.

This decision is the decision of us (the parents who will make the ultimate decision in January) our doctor and our God.

NOT YOU.

So thanks for making me feel like shit for not having made a decision yet. (I've got time. Until JANUARY, people.)

My husband has no issues with being cut. In fact, none of the adult men that I've talked to in real life have any issues with being cut and there are two instances were they both had the circumcision later in life: one decided not to share his reasons with me and the other had a non-uti, non-std infection that I didn't want the details of.

So while you're clearly entitled to your own opinion and are going to continue to share until you feel like you've "won" - I'm finished with this particular thread. You can keep posting about how it's disfiguring and my son will resent us if we decide to circumcise and on and on and on....but I'm not reading any more. Because whatever OUR decision is - it will not be based on any of the guilt you're trying to throw at us.

Thu, 2009-10-01 22:26

Kait

I'm sorry if you felt that I was trying to guilt you in to not circumcising your child. I was honestly just trying to point out to you that it is to no one's benefit that you pretend like you don't have a say because you don't have a penis. I, like you, don't know anyone who is particularly heartbroken over the fact that they were cut. However, my husband has made it very clear that he is as anti circumcision as I am because he feels that, like others have said, he wouldn't cut our daughters ears off for aesthetic purposes. He wouldn't cut parts off our daughter's genitals just to avoid having to teach them to keep their genitals clean. As parents, it's our job to protect our children and forcing them in to an optional surgery is not protecting them. Sure, if your son eventually needs to get circumcised for a medical reason, that's one thing. But at that point, it's not really an elective surgery. The chances of him having problems because you left it alone are essentially none, whereas the chances of him having problems because you cut off part of his penis are much much higher.

It's not about winning or about forcing my choices on your child. It's about getting people to think about why they're doing this to innocent babies. You're creating a beautiful, perfect child within your body - why would you immediately send him away to have pieces cut off?

Fri, 2009-10-02 07:28

Loqi

I'm not telling you what to do, Emmie. I'm just telling you about some of the consequences that don't often get discussed. Your son might resent being cut, and he may not even want to tell you about it. I'm sorry to be so abrasive. This topic bothers me deeply.

You say you want to leave it up to your husband because you don't have a penis. Well he doesn't have a foreskin. Maybe your son will go his whole life and never learn what the foreskin is for, or maybe he won't object to it. If you cut him, you're taking your chances. He'll grow up in a world where this stuff gets talked about more openly than ever before.

You don't need to worry about the disapproval of some stranger on the Internet. I can't say your son will grow up to wish he still had all his stuff. It's just a possibility. But I can say with certainty that I'm not the only one you'll meet who considers it unethical to sexually cut children, even if they're boys.

Fri, 2009-10-02 12:14

DrMomma

It is outstanding to read that you, as a young (cut) father yourself, took the initiative to dig into the research literature a bit on this topic before cutting your own son — not to mention acknowledging his basic human right of genital integrity. Kudos to you for this – someday he WILL be utterly grateful to you.

Your analogy of cutting off the ears so as to prevent any possible issue is spot on! Excellent.

I am a professor of human sexuality with a specialization in health topics surrounding birth and babies. The prepuce (’foreskin’ in boys or ‘hood’ in girls) and circumcision are subjects I have studied extensively and have had the opportunity to teach on at the university level for the past decade. The myths and misconceptions surrounding this topic are asinine. Even our medical personnel do not know what they are talking about most of the time. There is NO WHERE that accurate, research-based information is taught on the subject in the United States (not even in medical school). So it is no wonder most people end up getting their information from pop media news pieces and well-meaning (often misinformed) relatives.

The prepuce organ (certainly NOT ‘just skin’) is one that all mammals – both boys and girls (men and women) are born with. This organ (amputated via circumcision) has MANY vital, important functions and purposes (health, immunity, protection, sexuality, etc). Drs. Fleiss and Hodges (who have studied the prepuce and circumcision for 30+ years) wrote an excellent book titled, “What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision”. I highly encourage everyone to read it. In the meantime, a chapter excerpt on “The Functions of the Foreskin” is here: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/functions-of-foreskin-purposes-of.html

In response to someone else mentioning that they cut their son for reasons of ‘cleanliness’ – this is completely absurd. The prepuce is a self-cleaning organ AND in infancy and childhood it is 100% securely attached to the glans (head) of the clitoris (in girls) and penis (in boys). There is NOTHING you need to do to care for or ‘clean’ an intact baby’s penis. One of my colleagues in pediatrics once told new parents the only thing they needed to care for their intact son was a ruler – to slap the hand of anyone who tried to ‘mess with’ their son’s foreskin.

The best pediatric word of advice: INTACT = DON’T RETRACT. ONLY CLEAN WHAT IS SEEN.

If you haven’t already checked out these articles on protecting our sons, they are outstanding resources by doctors in the field of human health and sexuality:

Protect Your Intact Son
http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/08/protect-your-uncircumcised-son-exper...

Medical Tests: DO NOT RETRACT
http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/uti-testing-on-boys-do-not-retract.html

Only Clean What is Seen
http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/only-clean-what-is-seen-reversing.html

Ask the Experts
http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/ask-experts-forced-foreskin-retracti...

As far as the whole STD/HIV myth is concerned – fact of the matter is that every empirical study we have done in the United States over the past 30 years show that intact men above and beyond have less disease and illness of every kind (HIV included). In addition, on a worldwide scale, the U.S. has the highest rates of HIV of any developed nation and we also have (by far) the highest rates of circumcised adult men. The countries where 99% of men are intact have the LOWEST rates of STDs and HIV. This alone tells us something. The latest news report from Africa shows (no surprise here) that HIV is INCREASING rapidly among the groups of men who were circumcised. http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/08/here-we-go-again-new-york-times.html

In response to another person mentioning religious freedom to genitally mutilate our sons…We (in the U.S.) have outlawed, through the FGM Bill, any mutilation of baby girls for religious or non-religious reasons. Hopefully soon we pass the MGM Bill (http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/history-of-female-circumcision-in.html

I would encourage anyone who believes they are genitally cutting for religious reasons to dive into the subject further as well. If you are Christian, you will find that it is FULLY against what the early Christians taught, and how it is presented in the NT, by Jesus’ followers, and the Christian Church. http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/06/information-on-circumcision-for.html

If you are Jewish, hopefully you are well aware that cutting the blessing in antiquity was done in a MUCH different fashion than in modern day U.S. culture where we amputate the entire prepuce organ. While early Jews sliced the prepuce as a blood sacrifice of part of the covenant, Americans started the amputation practice in the late 1940s in an effort to curtail masturbation among men/boys. Thankfully, many Jews today are opting instead for a Brit Shalom rather than cutting their perfectly born sons. http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/06/circumcision-jewish-fathers-making.html

I suspect there may be other fathers out there who read your words…Penn & Teller have recently done a few pieces that especially speak to fathers. As long as you’re okay with their (sometimes crude) language, I’d encourage you to check out their documentary pieces. http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/fatherson-matching-penises-stop.html

Again, congrats to your son for having such an amazing, smart man as his father!! :)

Well done.

Sun, 2009-10-04 22:05

DrMomma

There were several more questioning comments on this post when it was re-posted to another Mom-Blog site. It is frightening how misinformed so many people are today in the United States. The prepuce organ has SO MANY monumentally important functions and purposes. It is certainly not a ‘worthless piece of skin’ as some people called it – in fact, it is not even skin – it is a complex, multifaceted oran. It is my sincere hope that parents do a little more research on the topic before making a life-long decision for their son. For starters, see "The Purpose of the Prepuce" by Drs. Fleiss & Hodges: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/functions-of-foreskin-purposes-of.html

In addition ~ while the stats some people like to throw around (usually from news media) are not quoted in context, (and therefor not accurate) a few things should be pointed out about the supposed claims of prepuce amputation leading to greater health:

STDS:

The U.S. has the highest rate of circumcision of any Western nation (by FAR the highest as our rates are 50% and the next closest is Canada with a rate at 9%). We also have the HIGHEST rate of all STDs of any Western nation (including HIV). Developed nations where 98-99% of their boys/men remain intact have the lowest rates of STDs (including HIV). If circumcision ‘protected’ against diseases (which it certainly does not – it does JUST THE OPPOSITE)…but if it did, we would NOT see these figures to such an extreme and obvious degree. Again, reviewing some of the primary purposes of the prepuce will explain why we see these numbers.

The prepuce makes and emits its own antibodies, antivirals, and antibacterials — it is a self-cleaning, protective organ that serves the immune system. The prepuce, the eye lids and the mammary glands are the only body organs that produce all these immune-supporting concoctions. For all these reasons it is not surprising that just this week the latest news from the African ’study’ on Circumcision & HIV is that ALL the areas where we have been circumcising adult men in Africa are seeing exponentially higher rates of HIV: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/07/african-hiv-circumcision-study-ends....

Condoms prevent STDs and HIV – not circumcision.

Cancer:

Men have a higher chance of getting BREAST CANCER (0.7% likelihood) than they do of getting penile cancer (0.09%). To argue that circumcision decreases the rate of penile cancer is like arguing that if we keep kids locked inside their bedroom their whole life they won’t get struck by lightening outside. It is absurd. Yes, if you cut an organ off your body, you will not ever get cancer in that organ. Cut off the breasts, we will not get breast cancer. Skin a person, and we won’t see melanoma. Maybe we should severe all organs & limbs & live as vegetables.

Cervical Cancer:

First, cervical cancer is (again) very rare. Second, it is easily treatable when malignant cells are found on the cervix – they are simply scraped off. It is one of the least ’scary’ forms of malignancy. Third, only the rarest few strains of HPV are linked with cervical cancer (HPV is what we are ‘worried’ about when we talk about intact men spreading diseases to women). Fourth, repeated peer-reviewed, empirical, valid and reliable studies done in both the United States and Canada have shown that there is NOT A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in the rate of cervical cancer between those with sexual partners who are cut vs. intact. Specifically, the odds of getting cervical cancer go from 0.72% to 0.49% in large groups of women whose partners are intact vs. cut. Rather, what DOES significantly increase a woman’s chance of contracting HPV (but not necessarily getting cervical cancer) include: having sexual partners without condoms prior to the age of 17; having 6 or more sexual partners without condoms; having sexual partners who have been with prostitutes. Again, condoms prevent HPV (and some cervical cancer instances), not circumcision.

UTIs:

Women/girls have a 900x greater likelihood of getting a UTI than men/boys. Should we cut off the prepuce organ of all girls at birth? Obviously they would ‘benefit’ more than the boys… No, of course not. Because UTIs are minor and EASILY and quickly treated with antibiotics. Among men/boys UTIs are very rare anyway, and when they do happen, they are almost always due to an unknowledgeable adult messing with/forcibly retracting/over-cleaning a baby boy’s penis. UTIs RARELY occur when the prepuce organ is left alone. It has its own antibodies and sphincters to protect it from any invaders or infection. The prepuce is securely adhered to the glans (head) during infancy and childhood. The way we could better prevent these is to educate people on the prepuce: DON’T RETRACT! ONLY CLEAN WHAT IS SEEN!

This whole discussion reminds me of something Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon recently told "The New York Times" in an interview. Ungar-Sargon is the Jewish film maker of the highly informative documentary, CUT: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision. (Watch/Buy Here: http://www.cutthefilm.com) After spending years researching this topic and studying with some of the ‘experts’ in the fields of human sexuality, human health, religion, history, and genital cutting, he concluded, “Circumcision was a cure in search of a disease. When you look through history, you see that whatever the scary disease of the generation was, that was the one that circumcision would help prevent. So in the early 20th century it was syphilis, a scary disease that there was no cure for then. Later, it was cancer. Then UTIs, and now HIV.”

I wholeheartedly agree with what others (and Ungar-Sargon) have said — genital cutting and the amputation of a healthy, functioning body organ from a non-consenting human being is a severe violation of human rights. If we did such a thing to a dog, we would be charged with animal abuse. And what we do to babies due to our own ignorance is certainly more criminal than that.

For more information, see these excellent sites:

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/ - especially for medical personnel and parents wishing to know the latest pediatric research on the topic

http://www.circinfosite.com/

http://www.nocirc.org/

http://www.intactamerica.org/

Sun, 2009-10-04 22:15