On Foreskins, From A Person Who Does Not Now And Indeed Never Has Had One
Published by Lisa Kansas May 26th, 2008 in Bodily Autonomy, Cock!, Culture, Health, SexIt makes me wary of espousing any opinion on the subject that appears to be laying down the law! in any way, shape or form. I imagine that some men feel the same way about espousing an opinion about the morality and/or legality of abortion, especially basing any such opinion on the way an abortion would personally impact the life of someone who was having one–
“It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound, when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.”
–Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion on the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban
Hey, I did say SOME men!
But anyway…
I do have sons. The first son made his appearance fifteen years ago. (Yes, I was a young mother. Easy clue: Roe vs. Wade and I were born the same year! Side note: If you wanna drive a rabid pro-lifer completely over the edge, putting it just that way works like a charm. It’s awesome.) The flow of information on the topic, not to mention internet access, was far less comprehensive than it is now; however, I was sure I didn’t want him circumcised. I lacked religious opinions on the subject and the research that was available at the time, that I had access to, did not seem to indicate that the medical advantages of having the procedure performed at all outweighed the possible complications, especially having it performed in early infancy. In my naivete, I imagined that my husband would agree with me. We did discuss it a few times prior to the birth, but we didn’t know if the baby was going to be a boy or not (military hospitals at that time had a policy of not giving the parents that information), and he honestly wasn’t very comfortable discussing it–since it might be a girl, I reasoned, we could wait til we found out and close out the topic then.
Bad idea. After twelve hours of non-medicated childbirth (military hospitals also had the policy at that time of not offering epidurals to women in labor–you could have an opiate, which I was told would depress the baby’s respiration and possibly cause brain damage and if I didn’t come to before it had to come out of me, also result in an episiotomy and/or forceps, or you could have nothing) lasting from midnight to noon, I was in no shape whatsoever to enforce my opinion on the subject. I also didn’t know they did it so soon after the birth–we had to decide right then.
I honestly don’t remember the conversation very well. I do remember starting to cry, and my husband hauling the doctor (the male doctor!) in to tell me that it was by far the best thing for the baby. So, I caved.
Second time around, I had far less excuse for allowing the procedure–but I did end up allowing it. We knew he was a boy from the fifth month of gestation onward, we had internet access, and there was five more years of information and research for me to pummel my husband with. We got into a few ferocious shouting matches near the end of my pregnancy. What really killed me, and my insistence, was that he clearly didn’t understand why I thought it was a big deal. This, to me, was the clincher, because as I say above…I’ve never had a foreskin. I don’t have a penis. The person who did, whose child this also was, a person who had already shown himself to be a very devoted parent to the first child, not only had a penis but thought it was really really important for the kid to NOT have a foreskin covering it. So, I caved a second time.
I still really regret both. I still think I was right, and it is quite, quite unnecessary to ever remove a boy’s foreskin as an infant except in the few isolated cases where there is a medical condition involving said foreskin. After all, said boy can choose at any time in his life to have his own foreskin removed, if it turns out it’s really an advantage.
It still puzzles me very, very deeply that it was always men, starting with the father of the boys, who were so bloody insistent that it be removed. It still makes me feel as if I am missing something very important. I just don’t know what it is. The only parallel there is, is that the people who perform female genital mutilation in the cultures that practice it, that perform breast ironing in the cultures that practice those, are always women, frequently relatives and sometimes even the same-sex parent of the child, and many of them are fanatically insistent that it is the best thing for the child. It is too much to believe that they’re all psychotic, every single last one of them. I understand there are cultural pressures (I believe that is what was primarily driving my husband). Of course, I believe that the cultural pressures driving circumcision are far slighter than the ones driving female genital mutilation and breast ironing–the majority of American women are not going to refuse to marry a man who is not circumcised because they think he’s “dirty” or will be unfaithful because of it, nor is a man who is uncircumcised in any greater danger of rape or forced marriage because he appears more sexually mature than he is because of it. But then, the results of circumcision, except for medical complications arising from the procedure itself, are far less drastic for the individual as well. Maybe that’s the justification that those who cave to the social pressure of conformity use to themselves. I don’t know; my husband and I were not able to communicate successfully on the subject.
I think back to the circumcision of my children when I read stories like this:
Sitting underneath the bright murals at a clinic, 22-year-old Elijah Ochanda gestures at his shorts and explains: “When they remove this thing, it makes you safer.”
He is talking about the circumcision he is about to undergo at the urging of his older brother. He has watched several friends die of AIDS, and has come to believe the science that says circumcision can prevent men from being infected.
Magic. It reminds me of those years-old fights with my husband, when he would be reduced to shouting “It’s just BETTER FOR HIM TO HAVE ONE!!”
No. It would be better for them all to wear condoms. Much, much more effective; much, much safer. Wear condoms, and control themselves. Spend all the money on the circumcision procedures on THAT. But do the men themselves want that..? Or would they rather have the magic cure? The one that doesn’t require them to change their behavior or deny themselves anything at all? Even if it’s not anywhere near as effective and has a risk of complications that could render them unable to function sexually at all?
I wish I understood what it was that I’m clearly, clearly not understanding at all, about circumcision.
Speaking as one who still has his foreskin, I have to say that I absolutely hate to hear about circumcisions being done with for such flimsy reasons as it’s just better, so it’s not just a male thing.
Those with religious reasons I can at least understand, although I would prefer to convince them to do otherwise, but the other ones? Let the boy decide when he’s old enough to do it on his own. It just seems cruel to do it at an age when, by all accounts, the boy will feel the pain more acutely than he would at any other point in life, especially when the practice started for the secular world in the misguided opinion that it would cause the boys to masturbate less when they got older.
I just wanted to say that I completely agree with your position. This may in fact be from the fact that I never had a circumcision, so I’ve never had to rationalize to myself why it’s better that why, which I would imagine is a big part of your husband’s insistence that it is, probably even more so than the cultural pressure.
I think it’s worth considering the angle that if your husband accepts that circumcision is not generally necessary for boy infants, then he has to accept and deal with the fact that he was violated as an infant by unnecessary removal of part of his body.
Attempting to construct a reality in which the experience is not only normal but positive and therefore one is not harmed is pretty common among those who have experienced some form of sexual trauma. Why should it be any different for male circumcision?
The main reason male circumcision persists is that men are unwilling to admit that it was a mistake for part of their penis to be cut off, so they’ll look for any possible reason to justify it. Similarly, you’ll find women who’ve undergone female circumcision justifying that.
Circumcision only became popular in north America in the 19th century because they thought that masturbation caused all sorts of physical and mental ailments, and they thought that circumcision prevented masturbation(!)
Hard to believe I know, but check out this link:
http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
They were wrong on both counts of course, but circumcised men keep looking for new ways to justify it.
It’s really sick that they now trying to promote circumcision in Africa to prevent AIDS, when it’s seems more likely to make things worse.
The studies which allegedly show a reduction in HIV among circumcised men are highly questionable. Not one of them was finished, despite the protective affect appearing to decline well below the oft-reported 65%, and several of the subjects disappeared. The fact that one study described circumcision as “comparable to a vaccine of high efficacy” seems to show clear bias. They appear to have been seeking a certain result. One has to wonder how many of the people promoting circumcision in Africa are themselves circumcised. Daniel Halperin is the grandson of a mohel, and seems to think that “maybe in some small way (he’s) destined to help pass along (circumcision)” so his objectivity is questionable.
Other epidemiological studies have shown no correlation between HIV and circumcision, but rather with the numbers of sex workers, or the prevalence of “dry sex”.
The two continents with the highest rates of AIDS are the same two continents with the highest rates of male circumcision. Rwanda has almost double the rate of HIV in circed men than intact men, yet they’ve just started a nationwide circumcision campaign. Other countries where circumcised men are *more* likely to be HIV are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Tanzania. That’s six countries where men are more likely to be HIV if they’ve been circumcised. Something is very wrong here. These people aren’t interested in fighting HIV, but in promoting circumcision (or sometimes anything-but-condoms), and their actions will cost lives.
Circumcised male virgins are more likely to be HIV than intact male virgins, as the operation sometimes infects men. The latest news is that circumcised HIV men are more likely to transmit the virus to women than intact HIV men (even after the healing period is over). Eight additional women appear to have been infected during that study, solely because their husbands were circumcised.
Female circumcision seems to protect against HIV too btw, but we wouldn’t investigate cutting off women’s labia, and then start promoting that.
For a good summary of the case against promoting circumcision in Africa, see this link:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
What Helen and CaptainBooshi said (from someone who still has theirs and isn’t giving it up). If the kid grows up and finds that some woman won’t go with him unless he gets circumcised, then he can get circumcised then, or alternatively he can decide that he’s not catering to her fetish and find someone else.
Thanks for this. I have a nine-month-old who is not circumcised. I was encouraged to stick to my choice partly by consciousness-raising discussion like this, partly by my midwife who refused to take part in it, but most of all by a woman who said “have you ever had sex with an uncircumcised man? Because I have and it’s nasty.” And I thought if someone said that about my genitals I’d be enraged. Cosmetic improvement just is not a good enough reason to take a knife to an infant of either gender.
And I clearly remember my husband looking confused as we looked at information refuting medical reasons for the procedure, like, “so, wait, what about mine?”
Esther, I’m with you that cosmetic improvement is not a good enough reason to operate on infant genitalia. It’s a scary thought, isn’t it?
There are women who have healthy concerns about sex with intact men, and I sympathize with them. Snipping anyone is not the answer though; if the guy isn’t as hardcore as he should be about hygiene, slap a condom on that thing or find another guy. Easy peasy.
Bravo, Lisa! BRAVO! It is just wonderful to see someone who Gets It all by themselves. Gets, that is, as much of It as the rest of us have been able to Get, collectively over literally years of discussion, reading and nine International Symposia. You have pierced to the centre of the mystery of Routine Infant Circumcision. The Intactivist movement has a few insights, or perhaps just names, for what you have experienced. One is the Adamant Father Syndrome. (I suspect that in your case it may be connected with his military environment.) Another is that circumcision is a memeplex. That link has a few insights about “women prefer it” and “to look like his father”.
You have contributed a big insight with one word: magic. Primitively, circumcision may have had the sympathetic magical purpose of making any penis look like an erect one, and hence a symbol of potency. Shedding the baby’s genital blood is also a magical act, but you are right about the magic protection against AIDS now being attributed to it. The same story you quote tells of a 61 year old married man with 9 children lining up to be circumcised. To have reached that age uninfected strongly suggests he is at less risk of AIDS than of complications of circumcision.
The current lemming-like rush to circumcise against AIDS comes as no surprise: circumcision has long been a “cure” in search of a disease, always the most feared disease of the day (and in the late 19th century, when secular circumcision began its present craze, that was masturbation, believed to cause such real scourges as TB - and in the UK a boy could be expelled from a “public” school for masturbtion, and lose caste and career prospects). The science claiming to prove a protective effect is shonky in the extreme. And the same few people who did the experiments, made the wild extrapolation that “Circumcision could save millions”, did the studies claiming it doesn’t harm sex and won’t affect condom use, advised the UN to promote circumcision, and are now “rolling out” circumcision campaigns - those same few people were promoting circumcision to prevent AIDS before there was any evidence.
I don’t feel I deserve any praise–I didn’t stand my ground when it mattered, especially the second time. I feel very, very lucky that neither of my boys suffered any complications from the procedure; I don’t know how I’d live with myself if that had happened. I don’t know how parents DO live with themselves when that happens, when they know it didn’t have to be done at all.
Okay, so if I’m having relations with an uncircumcised man, and I have a problem with hygiene, and I decide to, I don’t know, talk to him about it, instead of preaching circumcision, is that totally wrong? Kevin James, is THAT appeasement?
“have you ever had sex with an uncircumcised man? Because I have and it’s nasty.”
You know what? I think all penises are hideous, foreskin or no. Sorry, guys! But it’s not there to be framed and hung on the living room wall. As long as a guy keeps it clean and knows how to use it, I really don’t care.
It’s really important to men that their sons look like them, but I never understood why. What Helen and Mark have said makes a lot of sense.
I’m not having children, but if I would have a son, I would not have him circumsized. Not cutting off a piece of someone’s body for no good reason just seems like common sense to me.
Ooh. I can’t agree with that. I think penises are extremely attractive.
Lisa, I enjoyed reading your post. Like Hugh said you pretty much nailed it in one. Circumcision is a pernicious practice which is difficult to pry out of cultures who pick it up. I believe circumcision is very much a human rights issue an odd cultural practice that searches endlessly for justification, no matter how slight. I want to congratulate each of you for such a progressive stance on the issue.
Lisa I am sorry to hear your story; it is one that I’ve heard several times before. Even today it is not unheard of for US doctors to bully new parents into circumcision, usually against the parents better judgment. It’s good to know that none of your boys suffered any serious complications and at this point the best thing to do is tell others what you know and share your experience, just like what you’ve done here. So you do deserve praise for helping bring this issue out of the shadows; silence is one thing that has kept it going here in the US even after it had been long abadonded by the few other countries that picked up circumcision. As Esther pointed out posts like these do help re-enforce what rational people already know.
Esther I think that your friend’s comment might have been due to the fact that she wasn’t ‘used to’ seeing an intact guy. I doubt that her comment was legitimately a hygienic one, even if she thought it was. Intact guys are no less hygienic than circumcised guys. And to answer your question if any guy you’re having relations with needs a shower don’t you tell him anyway?
Lisa, YOU have a prepuce and your circumcised husband does NOT. Believe it or not the exquisite way it feels to rub your clitoris by manipulating the hood (female prepuce) is thought to be comparable to the way it feels for a man rub the frenulum through the foreskin (male prepuce). So women can tell the cut men in their lives that women are the authority on this.
So why is it so important for a boy to LACK LIKE DADDY, anyway?
With 95% of the non-Muslim world not circumcising, don’t let anyone tell you that “most” women prefer cut. And if they did would that be grounds to decide on behalf of an infant something he could easily decide later for himself?
Fantastic post!
Lisa, this doesn’t help you or your sons after the fact, but for any women who might be in a similar position (trying to argue that sons shouldn’t be circed when dad is adamant): women have foreskins, too. All mammals do. On women, our clitoral hoods are our foreskins.
So, if hubby argues that because he has the penis, he should be The Decider, his wife can respond with a) nope, I have the only intact foreskin in the family so far, and I like mine too much to consider parting with it, and our son should stay intact like me; and then of course b) it’s our son’s penis, he gets to decide what to do with it.
Thank you for sharing your story.
http://wreckingboy.livejournal.com/318545.html
“wreckingboy”: Mutilation Nation
Lisa you are no worse than two of the founders of Intactivism, Marilyn Milos and Rosemary Romberg, who both had three sons circumcised before they saw the light. Marilyn was an RN assisting at a circumcision when the doctor said, over the baby’s shrieks, “You know, there’s no medical reason for doing this.” She hadn’t known till then.
Another interesting point you raised, “he clearly didn’t understand why I thought it was a big deal” and yet “he would be reduced to shouting “It’s just BETTER FOR HIM TO HAVE ONE!!””. This theme comes through US TV soaps and sitcoms, time after time. Circumcision is no big deal as long as it’s done, but it’s vitally important if there’s any suggestion the baby’s penis be left alone. That mechanism keeps it “routine”.
I prefer circumcised penes.
Shit, that came out wrong. I prefer uncircumcised penes, so not all women prefer circumcised. My sons, if I ever have any, will not be circumcised.
Wow, I never knew this was a big a deal. In my head I would have say that if I had a son I would get him snipped, not for religious reasons I’m an atheist, but after reading this post I’ve realized that I have no reason for that view. I’m now rummaging through my mind to try to figure out why I feel that way, maybe it is just a “so he is like daddy” thing, I got no other reason to feel that way. You’ve left me with something to think about, or at least a new perspective to ponder if I’m ever in the situation where I need to make that decision. Peace.
Well, you weren’t able to protect your sons from unnecessary circumcisions, but you could certainly talk to your sons about the issue when/if they are about to become fathers themselves.
My husband is intact and very glad to be so. His father is circumcised and there was never any issue with them not “matching” since my husband inherited plenty of other, more visible, features from father-in-law. Indeed, as a child my husband mostly just noticed that his father’s penis was huge and hairy. His best friend, when he was little, was circumcised and that was never an issue for either of them.
I have no complaints about my husband’s whole penis and if we are blessed with a son, he will remain whole as well
Thank you so much for your post! It had quite a lot of insight in it. I hope your words encourage others to consider *why* exactly they want this surgery performed on their perfect newborn baby.
~B.
Bravo, Kilgore! Heaven only knows how many of of the 1.2 million circumcisions/year, one every 26 seconds in the US, are carried out on the same vague basis you were on the brink of - “Doesn’t everybody?”
I think one of the most telling arguments against that is, or should be, to see just what is involved, here or here (Stanford Univerity, hardly an anti-circumcision site). It’s not “just a snip”.
That’s great to hear Kilgore! The reason why you proabably hadn’t thought about it before is that for some reason, we in the States have just been going with the flow “everyone is doing it so it must be just fine”. Even though most professional organizations had labeled circumcision non-therapeutic since at least 1971. But doctors haven’t been conveying that information to the parents and now some 37 years later we still circumcise just over 50% of new born boys despite the fact that non-religious circumcision is very rare outside the US. As Lisa’s story shows when parents express doubt they are often bullied into it. This sometimes happens still today though many more Drs are more forward than they used to be.
I am glad you found this discussion enlightening if and when you need to read more about this visit http://www.cirp.org, a large but well organized library of academic publications and other printings regarding circumcision, or http://www.circumstitions.com. Some things that you should take away from the discussion is that non-religious circumcision is rare outside the US, it is declining in the US, and the medical case for circumcision is a flimsy house of cards. I am glad to hear you’re open to a new perspective and intend on researching this deeper than you might otherwise have.
Slight change the reference library is http://www.cirp.org the first link I provided had and a comma in it that needs to be removed.
I think this is more men than I’ve ever seen before in one place at this site.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Hey, i really appreciated your post. i hope many soon-to-be-mothers read it, and realize that if they let their circumcised husbands convince them to circumcise, they might just keep regretting it happened for years afterwards.
at least they can put an adult man under, if he wants to be circumcised at an older age… although, i would guess if you raised him to be not embarassed about having a foreskin, the idea of having it cut off would NEVER cross his mind.
a human deserves ownership of their OWN body parts, regardless of whether a parent thinks they would look better without one. its silly logic to suggest otherwise.
Perhaps the low circumcision rate here in the UK (1 in 10, most of those religious) is another thing we have the NHS to thank for. If it’s not medically necessary, the NHS won’t do it, and most people won’t go to the fuss and expense of finding a private doctor when they’ve been told flat out that it’s unnecessary.