The decision not to circumcise my son wasn’t one that I took
lightly. It involved deep introspection and careful evaluation of the science
on both sides. It also meant breaking myself away from herd mentality: both my
Jewish background, which strongly encouraged me to circumcise, and my
involvement in the communities of gentle parenting, which strongly encouraged me not to circumcise.
Eventually, just a few months before my son was born, I decided not to
circumcise him. What it boiled down to was this: I can’t justify a permanent
alteration of the body of someone who can’t consent, unless there is
irrefutable scientific evidence of the benefits of doing so.
That evidence exists for vaccines. It does not exist for circumcision.
But, unfortunately, as with all too many factors in “crunchy” culture, I found that “intacvitist” communities on the internet were positively overflowing with misinformation and pseudoscience. Here are the five most ridiculous lies and statements I encountered during my misadventures with intactivism:
1. “Circumcision of newborn boys is just as bad as female genital mutilation, or worse.”
What a way to insult survivors of FGM! There are different forms of femalegenital mutilation, but they all share several traits in common: they are absolutely condemned by science, they cause severe and irrevocable damage to sexual function and urogenital health, and they have no medical benefits whatsoever. Circumcision, on the other hand, has the intended goal of promoting human health. Girls who are mutilated are often strapped down so hard that they break limbs trying to escape, while elders cut off their labia or clitorises with sharp and rusty razors. They often bleed to death or die of infection. If you think a baby boy snipped in a clean American hospital is a victim on the same level, you need a fast and serious reality check.
2. “Circumcision is a modern invention. Circumcision in ancient times didn’t even involve removing skin. That’s why Michelangelo’s ‘David’ and paintings of baby Jesus show foreskins.”
If we assume that Renaissance artwork can be counted on as historically accurate, it would follow that unicorns must be real and that people had habit of standing around near objects that were symbolically appropriate to every occasion. “David” and historical paintings of Jesus show foreskin because Renaissance artists used non-circumcised models and because it was considered more aesthetically pleasing at the time. Circumcision is absolutely ancient: there is artistic and written documentation of it as far back as the fifth century BCE in ancient Egypt, and is specifically commanded and described in the Torah, which was written during roughly the same time period. Rewriting history to fit an intactivist agenda doesn’t help anyone.
3. “Babies die from circumcision every single day in the U.S.”
Bull. Death from circumcision is extraordinarily rare, estimated at about 1 in500,000 to 1 in 1,000,000. Your baby’s chances of dying of circumcision are slim to none, yet it’s a common intactivist tactic to make up bogus statistics. Some that I’ve heard include, “Your baby has a 1 in 50 chance of dying of circumcision”—really?—and “A baby dies from complications of circumcision every 10 minutes.” Nope, not at all. Sorry, guys, but you can’t make up statistics just to sound scary.
4. “Circumcision destroys sexual function. Men who are circumcised have 80% less sensation than men who are not circumcised.”
Just how do they think that was measured, I wonder? All evidence to date actually shows that circumcision has essentially no impact on sexual function. None. There was a massive review in 2010 that investigated several studies and couldn’t find evidence of any sexual dysfunction caused by circumcision. Circumcision didn’t affect rates of premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, difficulty with orgasm, sexual desire, or pain during sex. There’s no evidence that circumcised men suffer sexually because of it.
5. “Babies almost never need to be circumcised for medical reasons.”
This intactivist lie is often followed with the claim that a baby is more likely to die from circumcision than to medically need a circumcision. And, again, that’s just not true. Medically necessary circumcisions aren’t uncommon at all. One of my relatives needed one shortly after birth during surgery to correct a birth defect known as hypospadias. A friend of mine who is now an adult was circumcised as a child to make it easier, safer, and cleaner to use his catheter (he is incontinent). One of my friends’ sons needed a circumcision at three because of severe recurrent yeast infections. To call these people “mutilated” or “ruined,” or to erase the reality of their experiences, is hurtful—not to mention inaccurate.
At the end of the day, I don’t regret my decision not to circumcise my son—and I hope that he doesn’t regret it, either. But, unlike other intactivists, I don’t feel a need to bury my head into pseudoscience and lies in order to justify the decision I made regarding my child’s body, and I don’t feel a need to shame or attack men who have been circumcised or parents who choose to do it. As long as the science says that there’s not enough evidence to fully support or condemn circumcision, I think it’s about time we reach an agreement: let’s stop arguing and obsessing over baby penises. You take care of your kids and I’ll take care of mine.
That evidence exists for vaccines. It does not exist for circumcision.
But, unfortunately, as with all too many factors in “crunchy” culture, I found that “intacvitist” communities on the internet were positively overflowing with misinformation and pseudoscience. Here are the five most ridiculous lies and statements I encountered during my misadventures with intactivism:
1. “Circumcision of newborn boys is just as bad as female genital mutilation, or worse.”
What a way to insult survivors of FGM! There are different forms of femalegenital mutilation, but they all share several traits in common: they are absolutely condemned by science, they cause severe and irrevocable damage to sexual function and urogenital health, and they have no medical benefits whatsoever. Circumcision, on the other hand, has the intended goal of promoting human health. Girls who are mutilated are often strapped down so hard that they break limbs trying to escape, while elders cut off their labia or clitorises with sharp and rusty razors. They often bleed to death or die of infection. If you think a baby boy snipped in a clean American hospital is a victim on the same level, you need a fast and serious reality check.
2. “Circumcision is a modern invention. Circumcision in ancient times didn’t even involve removing skin. That’s why Michelangelo’s ‘David’ and paintings of baby Jesus show foreskins.”
If we assume that Renaissance artwork can be counted on as historically accurate, it would follow that unicorns must be real and that people had habit of standing around near objects that were symbolically appropriate to every occasion. “David” and historical paintings of Jesus show foreskin because Renaissance artists used non-circumcised models and because it was considered more aesthetically pleasing at the time. Circumcision is absolutely ancient: there is artistic and written documentation of it as far back as the fifth century BCE in ancient Egypt, and is specifically commanded and described in the Torah, which was written during roughly the same time period. Rewriting history to fit an intactivist agenda doesn’t help anyone.
3. “Babies die from circumcision every single day in the U.S.”
Bull. Death from circumcision is extraordinarily rare, estimated at about 1 in500,000 to 1 in 1,000,000. Your baby’s chances of dying of circumcision are slim to none, yet it’s a common intactivist tactic to make up bogus statistics. Some that I’ve heard include, “Your baby has a 1 in 50 chance of dying of circumcision”—really?—and “A baby dies from complications of circumcision every 10 minutes.” Nope, not at all. Sorry, guys, but you can’t make up statistics just to sound scary.
4. “Circumcision destroys sexual function. Men who are circumcised have 80% less sensation than men who are not circumcised.”
Just how do they think that was measured, I wonder? All evidence to date actually shows that circumcision has essentially no impact on sexual function. None. There was a massive review in 2010 that investigated several studies and couldn’t find evidence of any sexual dysfunction caused by circumcision. Circumcision didn’t affect rates of premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, difficulty with orgasm, sexual desire, or pain during sex. There’s no evidence that circumcised men suffer sexually because of it.
5. “Babies almost never need to be circumcised for medical reasons.”
This intactivist lie is often followed with the claim that a baby is more likely to die from circumcision than to medically need a circumcision. And, again, that’s just not true. Medically necessary circumcisions aren’t uncommon at all. One of my relatives needed one shortly after birth during surgery to correct a birth defect known as hypospadias. A friend of mine who is now an adult was circumcised as a child to make it easier, safer, and cleaner to use his catheter (he is incontinent). One of my friends’ sons needed a circumcision at three because of severe recurrent yeast infections. To call these people “mutilated” or “ruined,” or to erase the reality of their experiences, is hurtful—not to mention inaccurate.
At the end of the day, I don’t regret my decision not to circumcise my son—and I hope that he doesn’t regret it, either. But, unlike other intactivists, I don’t feel a need to bury my head into pseudoscience and lies in order to justify the decision I made regarding my child’s body, and I don’t feel a need to shame or attack men who have been circumcised or parents who choose to do it. As long as the science says that there’s not enough evidence to fully support or condemn circumcision, I think it’s about time we reach an agreement: let’s stop arguing and obsessing over baby penises. You take care of your kids and I’ll take care of mine.
**clapping**
ReplyDeleteI am glad you listened to your mommy gut and left your son intact and I agree with you that there are a lot of inaccurate statements floating around out there about male circumcision.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to female genital cutting and comparing it to male circumcision, I think it is important to take a step back and see the bigger picture. The fact is that American doctors recommended female genital cutting for decades, beginning in the Victorian Era. They claimed it made the genitals cleaner, that it reduced UTIs in girls, that it prevented a myriad of issues (see historyofcircumcision.net for more information). There are American women walking around who were cut as girls… this can not be ignored. The history of female genital cutting in the United States should not be overlooked. Your own parents could have had you cut as a newborn (it was legal until 1997).
I want to draw a parallel for a second, imagine your son getting held down by someone and raped. Imagine him crying out for help. But you weren't there to help. You never saw his pain, he went through life trying to "man up" and "be tough." Now imagine a girl getting raped. She has been conditioned to speak out, to tell a trusted woman, and she gets help and heals. This happens every day. My husband is a childhood rape victim. Why should HIS voice matter any less than the voice of a young girl who was raped? Hector Cruz, the founder of Project: Breastfeeding, is also a childhood rape victim. Why should his voice matter any less?
So, too, why should a man who had part of his genitals, the most sensitive part of his body, cut off at birth after being strapped to a plastic board have his voice silenced in comparison to a woman who was held down by family or friends and had part of her genitals cut off? "The Rape of Innocence" by Patricia Robinett is an eye-opener when it comes to female genital cutting and its practice in America… and the impact genital cutting can have on the psyche of a child.
Overall, I think it would be beneficial for you to do a lot more scientific-based research on this topic. I frequently use NCBI to look at studies about circumcision and I frequently share the "Complications of Circumcision" from there because it is backed by studies.
Michelangelo's David is intact because that was the norm for Italians and most Europeans during the Renaissance period. The intact genitals were viewed as an unblossomed flower, with beauty to be uncovered. I wish that thinking was held onto more in American culture, that our sons were not forced to be made to look like an erect man as newborn babies; that they were given time to slowly unfold their manhood.
There are many reasons why circumcision is sold as necessary in the American medical community and many of them are inaccurate at best. It is always best to err with European studies, all of which say that circumcision is rarely needed when proper intact care is used.
Personally, I will stop educating about circumcision when there is gender equality on this issue.
#SavingSons
Very well stated Saving Sons. Thank you!
DeleteWhile I'm glad that you didn't have your child circumcised, I would like to see the evidence that banks up your claims in this post.
ReplyDelete1. FGM & MGM are one and the same. It doesn't matter to what fever the mutilation is, it's still mutilation of a non-consenting body.
2. Circumcision of biblical times was a lot less destructive than it is today. Only the very tip of the foreskin was removed, not exposing the glans, as is the practice today.
3. 117 babies a year did from complications of circumcision. That's not a far stretch of reality when you consider that it only takes 1 oz of blood loss for an infant to hemorrhage and-2.3 oz to die.
4. When you consider that the foreskin is packed full of fine touch receptors, yes, it's entirely possible that it causes sexual dysfunction when those parts are removed.
5. We don't surgically alter female bodies because of yeast infections, we medicate. American doctors world have the general public believe that circumcision is the answer to many penile health related problems when this is simply not true. Proper intact care as an infant/child often circumvents the needs for medical intervention. Clean what is seen, never retract. The ONLY person who should retract is the boy himself.
While I'm glad that you didn't have your child circumcised, I would like to see the evidence that banks up your claims in this post.
ReplyDelete1. FGM & MGM are one and the same. It doesn't matter to what fever the mutilation is, it's still mutilation of a non-consenting body.
2. Circumcision of biblical times was a lot less destructive than it is today. Only the very tip of the foreskin was removed, not exposing the glans, as is the practice today.
3. 117 babies a year did from complications of circumcision. That's not a far stretch of reality when you consider that it only takes 1 oz of blood loss for an infant to hemorrhage and-2.3 oz to die.
4. When you consider that the foreskin is packed full of fine touch receptors, yes, it's entirely possible that it causes sexual dysfunction when those parts are removed.
5. We don't surgically alter female bodies because of yeast infections, we medicate. American doctors world have the general public believe that circumcision is the answer to many penile health related problems when this is simply not true. Proper intact care as an infant/child often circumvents the needs for medical intervention. Clean what is seen, never retract. The ONLY person who should retract is the boy himself.
If it caused sexual dysfunction, men wouldn't be as sexually pleased as they are. While there is the potential for botching, it is incredibly rare. So much unnecessary complaining from both sides. Female genital mutilation is not the same as male circumcision and to think there are women that want to compare the two as if they're the same is appalling. If you think they're the same, let's see how well you function sexually after having the procedure ladies.
ReplyDeleteNow we have to consider the fact a lot of parents are horrible failures at parenting and would not keep their kid clean. Then, we have to consider the issue of diapers and poo lingering around the foreskin. Further down the line we have to acknowledge that a lot of lads are not cleanly creatures and would not keep themselves clean. There are pros and there are cons to both sides. What is appalling in the arguments is that there are women that have the skewed audacity to compare the removal of the clitoris to the removal of the foreskin. Yeah, no, not the same thing at all.
Unless there is a botching of the male circumcision, no one is missing out on anything. If you don't want to circumcise your lad, don't do it, if you do, then fine, go for it. The point of this article is that lies should not be concocted and passed around as facts. Really that seems to be what this whole website is about and more power to them for pointing out the lies that are being tossed around as facts.