In the past, people did a lot of things that we now know are dangerous or harmful. People drove around in cars without seat belts or car seats for their kids. People drank alcohol while pregnant. People started feeding babies solids at 6 weeks. Schools used harsh physical discipline to keep students in line. Parents dressed their children in fire retardant chemical laced pyjamas. Just last year we were all sipping happily from our BPA-laced plastic bottles and now they are on the verge of being banned in some jurisdictions.
We learn from our mistakes. There isn’t a lot of point in dwelling on them. In feeling guilty for past mistakes, especially when we didn’t know better. But should we really be continuing to perpetrate those mistakes, over and over and over again in the name of tradition?
Circumcision has always been a hot issue. For a while, infant boys were circumcised routinely. But since 1975 the Canadian Pediatric Society’s neonatal circumcision policy has been that there is no medical indication for male neonatal circumcision. In 1971, 67.5 % of boys were circumcised. In 2005, only 9.2% were circumcised (see Canada Circumcision Statistics) – edited to add: I have since found other statistics that suggest the rate might be around 32% (see page 267 of the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey) as of 2006/2007. It appears as though the first number may reflect circumcisions done in hospitals only, whereas the second number reflects total circumcisions. In Canada, generally neither public health care nor private health care will pay for elective infant circumcision. It is not considered a necessary or advisable medical procedure and parents have to pay for it themselves.
But male circumcision is a tradition, people say. A religious tradition. Something that has been done for thousands of years. That doesn’t make it right. That doesn’t even make it okay. Traditions are fine and well when they are about singing songs, celebrating holidays, making traditional meals, wearing specific clothing. But when traditions involve physically altering or harming another human being, I think it needs to be questioned. Perhaps the conclusion is that it is okay. But we cannot simply say that something is okay because it is a tradition.
- Female circumcision is tradition
- Stoning people to death is a tradition
- Honour killing is a tradition
- War is a tradition
- Forced marriage is a tradition
- Corporal punishment in schools is a tradition
- Foot binding to stunt girls growth is a tradition
Are any of these acceptable? No. But they are traditions. Rather than blindly continuing a practice because it is a tradition, I think the world’s religions have a responsibility to progress, to remove discrimination, to remove harmful practices and to ensure the dignity of all.
Personally, while I recognize that circumcision is a choice that parents have the right to make, I don’t think it is a choice that should be made by the parents. I put it in the same category as a piercing or a tattoo. It is a cultural tradition perhaps, but one that should be chosen by the boy when he is old enough to weigh the risks and benefits and make the decision for himself.
You may feel differently. All I ask though is that you think about it. Do your research. Don’t just blindly circumcise because it is a tradition.
Want more information? Read:
- The Case Against Circumcision by Dr. Paul M. Fleiss (yes, he is Jewish) as published in Mothering Magazine
- The circumcision post by my friend and fellow blogger Amy from Crunchy Domestic Goddess (also has more resources at the end)
- Doctors Opposing Circumcision: Genital Integrity Policy – fully referenced with scientific studies attacking the false claims about the benefits of circumcision and talking about the risks of circumcision (thank you to @IntactbyDefault for the link)
- Intact America – an organization working to protect babies from unnecessary, risky and painful circumcision surgery.
Side note: On the reason that circumcision came up again today, it appears that the CDC is considering a blanket recommendation that boys be circumcized in the United States due to possible lower HIV transmission rates among circumcised men (which many researchers say are exaggerated claims). Sounds like cutting off the nose to spite the face. Why not start with universally mandatory sex education in schools in the United States?
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 126 comments… read them below or add one }
sex ed is mandatory in the u.s. people are allowed to opt out. but the kids start learning about sex and everything that goes along with it in the 4th grade.
it’s not barbaric. it’s nothing like female circumcision, stoning, binding feet etc. it doesn’t impact their everyday life. it doesn’t kill them. it isn’t a form of torture. it’s a proven beneficial, and simple medical procedure. and while you are entitled to your opinion, you’re comparison is so way off.
just like breastfeeding, baby wearing etc…it’s a choice. at least, at this point it is. if you don’t want to circumcise your child, don’t. but certainly don’t try to compare it to those examples you’ve mentioned.
I’m not trying to compare it to those things. I am just trying to point out that because something is a tradition, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t question it. Those examples help hammer home that point. Male circumcision is different from those examples, but still worth questioning.
From the research I have done, I cannot agree with you that it is a beneficial medical procedure. I have seen no evidence of that.
With regards to sex ed, I don’t consider abstinence only sex ed to be sex ed. My understanding was that there are still a lot of abstinence only programs in the US. This article mentions that it certainly isn’t universal:
Sex ed is in no way mandatory in the U.S. Neither abstinence-only “sex or” or real sex ed. It’s a district-by-district decision (or, in some cases, perhaps state-by-state).
Annie is well within her right to compare it to those things. When you circumcise a boy, you are removing skin and cutting off nerve cells. I don’t say this for shock value; I say it because it’s true. Comparing it to foot binding and FGM is right. Not all FGM is “lop it all off.” Some types are simply (?) removing the hood of the clitoris, which is what you’re doing when you circumcise a boy.
Just don’t say “It’s not barbaric,” until you watch one. See a baby tied down and screaming. They can feel pain. To think otherwise is to ignore their humanity at birth.
Breastfeeding and babywearing are indeed a choice, but not a choice that manipulates the form and shape and sensitivity of another person’s body WITHOUT his consent.
People say, “Well, it’s the parents’ job to make decisions for their child.” It sure is. But if they were giving children rhinoplasty or appendectomies at birth (cosmetic or surgeries to remove something “unnecessary” and “possibly problematic”), there would be a huge outcry. It is shameful that the U.S. still practices circumcision at the rate we do.
I’m from the Midwest, like you, Melissa (Illinois). There, all of my nephews are not circumcised, but we know that our family are in the minority. Now I live in Virginia near a liberal community where circumcision is not performed as a matter of course. I would venture to guess that about 70 percent of baby boys are intact around here.
People are changing. I suggest that you and everyone like you really investigate the practice and join us in our opposition.
I’ve written much about this, but the commenters on my posts have been incredibly knowledgeable about the reasons to leave a boy intact:
http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/02/23/11-reasons-not-to-circumcise/
http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/07/30/“intactivist”-group-lobbies-cdc-against-circumcision/
And Melissa (and all)? This hasn’t been an easy decision. I was a single mother for my older son, and had no one to argue my decision to leave my son intact. For my second, it was a big fight between my husband and me. It may have to be for some families, but I feel it’s worth it (and someday, my son will laugh at us for arguing over his penis!):
http://cate-et-al.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-fight-for-foreskin.html
(Thanks for linking to my blog, Annie!)
I wasn’t comparing. While I agree with you that circumcision is an awful practice, I wouldn’t dare try to compare. I have not experienced any of the things on that list (other than some mild corporal punishment), so I don’t have a basis for comparison. Last time people thought I was making a comparison (when I wasn’t) I took a lot of flack for it, so I try to avoid comparisons unless I have a really strong basis for making the parallel. I only mentioned those other things because they are also traditions, like circumcision, yet we find it right to condemn them. Why are some traditions off limits from criticism and others are not? That is the point I was trying to make.
Yes, cutting off a piece of your infant’s penis is barbaric. There is just no way around it. It has not been proven beneficial, on the contrary, it has been proven to be detrimental both physically and psychologically which is why doctor’s will not recommend the procedure anymore. It is very sad that generations of men will be mentally/physically traumatized because of their parents’ blind sheep mentality.
Wake up.
but there are children who die from infections or bleeding to death following the circumcisions for which they certainly didn’t give consent. in some cases it does leave men with lowered function, inability to achieve orgasm, and does in a very real way impact their daily life. just because those who have survived it have declared themselves okay doesn’t mean they aren’t missing something. they have no means of making a comparison.
Respectfully, since when could you opt out of something mandatory? Anyway, I believe the evidence for health benefits is far from conclusive. There was definitely a reduction in sensitivity though (speaking as someone who had a circumcision for medical reasons late enough to notice). One can see circumcision – much more drastically for women – as part of the general agenda in religions with male priesthoods to control and manage people’s sexuality in this context. That would make it part of a set of power relations that need to be questioned very closely in my view.
i love the t-shirt phrase “circumcision is a cure looking for a disease”–the fact that we’ve been doing something doesn’t mean we should or that it has value. that’s just bad science.
even though, circumcision is a tradition (which, as you point out, is really the only reason it is still around)–in the larger sense of human history, intact males are the tradition. routinely circumcised males are a fraction of the population in an extremely small fraction of human existence–and maybe that’s the way the math should stay. personally, i’m a big fan of the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” school of thought especially when it comes to medicine. i’m all for stopping the spread of aids, but looking for a link between hiv and circumcision in spite of the evidence against such a link, just looks like a desperate attempt to validate something that has already been done. we really need to focus our energy. aids needs fixed. baby boys do not.
i’m in michigan. so the only experience i have with sex ed is through my children. who learn about various forms of birth control, std’s etc. they learn about abstinence but they also learn options. teaching abstinence is equivalent to parents and school districts sticking their head in the sand.
i think, more than anything, i would be upset about the choice being taken away from the parent. because, when it comes down to it in my opinion, the gov’t has no business telling the parents they MUST get their male children circumcised. just like, and again, in my opinion, deciding whether or not girls can control their own bodies by trying to take away the right to abortion…which is a whole different can of worms, eh?!
but that’s what i’d be up in arms about. because if you have the choice, then this would be a moot point.
i really hope canada doesn’t pass this blanket law. it’s just ANOTHER part of human life that the government is trying to control. and it’s enough already!!
thank you for tweeting and writing something that REALLY made me think!! that doesn’t happen often!
Melissa – Just to clarify, it isn’t Canada that is considering this. It is the United States. I only provided the information on what Canada does to give context and present another perspective.
We chose not to circumcise our son, who is now 8 months old. We caught some flack from family members who thought it was weird not to. Personally, I don’t think they should worry about his penis.
I am concerned that the procedure is unnecessary and that during the surgery, the baby potentially isn’t numbed enough. I’ve read that years ago, no pain medication was administered at all because it was believed a newborn couldn’t experience pain. Holy crap!
Even though my midwife administered lidocane while she stitched up my tears, I felt pain. Who is to say that my son wouldn’t feel surgery on his own genitals?
Sure, my son won’t “look like Daddy.” But ya know what? I don’t think he needs to be seeing Daddy’s private parts to begin with. And circ’ed or not, it’s not going to look like Daddy’s at his age.
I think the CDC’s argument to circumcise based on lower rates of HIV is absurd. Men can still contract the virus if they’re circumsicised, and to say otherwise would be irresponsible.
If my son later wants a circumcision, I’ll be happy to pay for the surgery. For one, he can be sure that he’s adequately numbed/sedated. And for two, it’ll be his choice.
“me think!! that doesn’t happen often!” I loled.
When I was a medical student, I volunteered to teach health/sex ed at the local elementary because there was no “sex ed” program in Hartford, CT, USA. We were told that parents had complained about us teaching about contraception, and so we were only allowed to talk about what happens during puberty and how conception happens, but NOT contraception, or the whole volunteer program stood a chance of getting kicked out of the school.
As for circumcision, my point of view is that if the parents want it, they should have to pay for it. Having patients pay for it (since Medicaid doesn’t reimburse us for it much) cuts down on this unnecessary, cosmetic procedure quite a bit and does not take away the parents’ right to choose.
I agree. That is the way things are in Canada (re: circumcision). The parents have to pay. That has resulted in a circumcision rate of less than 10%.
As a parent who had her son circumcised for religious reasons, I totally hear what you’re saying about how traditions are not sacrosanct and everything should be questioned. In the case of circumcision, I personally do not see it as a barbaric practice that we need to reject; rather than comparing it to all the things you mentioned, I’d compare it to the practice of piercing baby girls’ ears, which also can be briefly painful and can possibly lead to infection, but overall is pretty innocuous.
But I think an important factor in this equation is how seriously you take the tradition. For a religious person for whom their religious practice is at the center of their lives, there are going to have to be some pretty compelling reasons to not circumcise. For someone who says they want to circumcise their son “so that he will look like Daddy”, even a small doubt about the health benefits of the procedure should be enough to reconsider. I would never pierce a baby girl’s ears since the positive reasons are not so strong, so the minor health concerns become quite serious (also I think babies are cuter without earrings), but I did circumcise my son since the minor health concerns were overridden by the major religious concern.
I also wouldn’t pierce my child’s ears until he/she is old enough to choose and to take care of them him/herself.
I wouldn’t pierce my baby girls ears either, but even still the two aren’t comparable. YOU ARE MUTILATING THE HUMAN SEX ORGAN, not poking a hold in cartilage with few nerves.
Ear lobes are not cartilage, they’re soft flesh. Not to mention that the majority of people who pierce their babies’/young children’s ears have it done with piercing guns which are totally inappropriate for piercing holes in skin and are bloody painful. I am as against piercing children’s ears as I am against circumcision (luckily I live in the UK where it’s the circumcised penis which is ‘weird’ and ‘other’) – they are both the causing of unnecessary pain to a human being who has not given informed consent for the procedure, and should be done away with.
I only have daughters and so have not had to deal with this issue. Although as an adult I prefer a circumcised penis to an un-circumcised one, I could never ever ever put a child of mine through that procedure unless they themselves wanted it. My husband and I had decided if we had a boy to wait and leave it up to the child himself unless there was a medical reason to have it done (in a hospital with pain relief readily avaialble). The images of it being carried out on the website you linked to sicken me. That child did not appear to have any pain relief whatsoever. I sincerely hope that parents who do make that choice for their boys, also do so with appropriate anaethesia and pain relief afterwards.
I agree – to a degree. A blanket recommendation for infant circ to prevent HIV in the US is senseless – Europe and Canada, where sexual culture is similar to the US and circ rates significantly lower, is not experiencing significantly higher HIV infection rates. If circumcision really provided protection against HIV in all cases, we should be seeing higher HIV infection rates in Europe and Canada as compared to the US, based on the higher circ rate in the US. This Mothering article that looks at the studies indicating that circumcision might protect against HIV does a good job of checking the science and rigor (or lack thereof) of those studies, and I agree with the questions the article raises about the studies’ conclusions:
http://www.nocirc.org/2008-07_Mothering-Fauntleroy.pdf
On the other hand, I am currently living in the midst of an HIV pandemic – over 23% of the population is infected, over 40% of women age 19-40. Here, the sexual culture is very different from the US/Canada/Europe, as multiple, concurrent sexual partners are common and are acknowledged as the main driver of the epidemic. Maybe there is some protective factor about circumcision that exists in this kind of sexual culture (which is more similar to the cultures where the studies, flawed as they were, took place). In this particular context, I can understand and even support male circumcision campaigns. Many of those targeted are adults, who are making the decision for themselves to be circumcised. Many more, however, are infants, whose health care providers and parents are struggling to find something, anything, that will help protect these tiny boys from becoming infected with HIV later in life. They are desperate people willing to take desperate measures in a country that has been decimated by a deadly disease. Although I am an American who did not circumcise her two sons, if I were a Mosotho whose baby boy had a life expectancy of 37 years, you could probably sign me up for his circumcision in a heartbeat.
Sorry to rant a bit, Annie – I understand that this is not the target of your post on circumcision, but I couldn’t help but point out that cultural context in making a decision about circumcision is important. Not for the religious or “he needs to look like everyone else” arguments, but for the particular health arguments in the HIV context.
Incidentally, there are several articles investigating the arguments that can be made against circumcision in the Jewish context here: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/religious.htm
Thank you for the comment Elizabeth. I do agree that the cultural context is different in Africa and if there truly is good evidence that circumcision = lower HIV infection rates, then circumcision should perhaps be considered because the degree of the epidemic may outweigh other concerns about circumcision.
I thought it was interesting that you said folks needed to do their research, then every single link you provided was anti-circumcision.
It could easily be argued that biologically and evolutionarily, there was a reason for the foreskin, much like the appendix and wisdom teeth, WAY back when we were all running in bearskins, carrying clubs and living in caves. Men NEEDED that foreskin since they were not wearing underwear.
If we are going to get all “stretchy” with our arguments, then we should not remove wisdom teeth either – something that IS primarily cosmetic since it pushes all the other teeth around and ruins perfectly good orthodontic work.
Truthfully, I don’t care whether folks circumcise or not. I let my husband choose – he is from India, a place where it does go both ways. But to compare our action of circumcise to stoning, murder, foot binding and war? That is just silly and insulting. Good grief.
I have read the pro-circ and anti-circ information and have come to the conclusion that the anti-circ arguments are both more authoritative and convincing. I’m not about to link to things here that I feel are inaccurate or are not the best science. But I won’t stop anyone from going and seeking them out themselves.
I don’t know what the practice is where you live, but wisdom teeth are not routinely removed where I live. They are removed if they are causing other problems. I don’t have a problem with an adult male choosing a circumcision if he is having health issues related to his foreskin. However, the vast majority of men experience no such issues.
As I said in a previous comment, I am not comparing circumcision to those other practices. I was just trying to give examples of situations where something is a “tradition”, but we would consider it unacceptable. I was hearing too many people say over and over again that they understand that there is no medical reason for circumcision, but they have to do it because it is tradition. You do not have to do something because it is a tradition and we should question all traditions that could potentially be harmful.
I have never witnessed an incident where someone involuntarily had their wisdom teeth removed.
Good point. Neither have I. In fact my husband has been pressured in the past by dentists to do it because it might cause him problems, but he has chosen to keep his wisdom teeth until they do pose a problem (if that ever happens).
I’m actually one of those people. My parents are firm believers in doing what doctors tell you to to. So when the dentist said my bottom wisdom teeth were impacted and my mouth too small because I was a girl, they decided they needed to be removed. In the wait between this decision and them actually coming out, my bottom wisdom teeth came through- not impacted and didn’t affect the rest of my bite. I couldn’t understand why they were to be removed. When I asked the dentist he said it’s because it’ll be harder to clean them. So they removed them. I was 17 and had no say in the matter. A year later my top ones came in and I was 18 and chose to not have them removed. They are just fine and my bite has not been affected. There are times when I feel the holes that my bottom teeth once occupied and wonder, “What would it have been like to be able to actually chew with those teeth?” I do regret it. I regret just accepting my parent’s decision in the matter and not fighting it.
AND, even if you could argue you didn’t need the foreskin (which I don’t think your arguement is very convincing) since when do we go chopping off parts we don’t really need? You’re right, people can live without an appendix, but we don’t routinely take them out just because we can. Circumcision could be reserved for cases when it is medically necessary instead of being a routine procedures “so he looks like his daddy”.
I was not really arguing that foreskin wasn’t needed. It was supposed to be a tongue in cheek comment, albeit a poorly written one on my part. We need an emoticon for “tongue in cheek”. My husband made the decision to circumcise our son based on his personal experiences with the issue. It is hard to swallow that being compared to other traditions, no matter how loosely compared.
I’m sorry, but I have almost fallen over laughing at one of the poster’s comments above who compared circumcision to piercing an ear.
First of all, let me suggest to that poster, and to all the other posters out there who falsely believe that circumcision is not cruel or barbaric, that they watch a video of a circumcision. There are plenty of these videos online for them to see. I am very certain indeed that the women will change their minds quite rapidly when they actually see a circumcision being performed on a baby that is strapped down and screaming.
Secondly, there are feet…yes, FEET of nerve endings on the foreskin. The foreskin is very important for lubrication during sex, for keeping dirt and germs at bay, and for prompting sexual pleasure. One of the main proponents in America of circumcision was Dr. Kellogg, of Kellogg Cereals, who wrongly believed that circumcision would lessen the pleasure of sexual feelings and thus prevent masturbation altogether. As probably all circumcised men will attest, circumcision does NOT stop masturbation. Ahem.
Circumcision is an utterly abhorrent practice and is totally and utterly unnecessary. Most of the world is not circumcised. Scandinavia has the lowest circumcision rate in the Western world and lowest number of AIDS cases, while America, the country in the West with the highest number of circumcised males, also has the highest number of males with AIDS in it.
I am just very grateful that I gave birth in a country where circumcision is not the norm and baby boys are allowed to retain their dignity and stay intact. If males wish to be circumcised, let them choose it for themselves as adults. There is a reason why males in Europe do not choose circumcision as adults.
As for mothers who comment on here that male circumcision is different than female circumcision, they are very wrong indeed. However, how would they feel about female circumcision if it were done in the manner that male circumcision is done in America — when the baby is only hours old, strapped down and with no anesthetic (95% of American males have no anesthetic whilst being circumcised). Would mothers think it was okay to circumcise their daughters in this manner?
Here’s another interesting fact about diseases: men are more likely to contract breast cancer than to develop the types of cancer that circumcision claims to help save men from. Furthermore, females are more likely to die from breast cancer than men are to die from anything that circumcision claims to prevent. Should females all have their breasts lobbed off at birth to prevent possible breast cancer in the future? Think about that one, folks.
Most importantly of all, people should THINK before they circumcise their children. Get all the facts. Watch videos of infant circumcisions. There is no logical reason whatsoever to do it and religion or your beliefs are nothing but a man-made construct and totally illogical. Reason. It’s much more important than tradition.
I also think its important to note that the article you’re referring to about the CDC considering recommending circumcisions states that the risk of HIV was only shown to be decreased for heterosexual men. No considerable evidence showed that homosexual men’s risk was decreased, and considering they are at the highest risk it makes the statement seem even more blown out of proportion. Circumcision is not the cure for HIV.
Boys should have a say over what happens to their body. It should be their choice.
If my son wants a circumcision, he can have it. But he gets to choose. Not me. Not his dad. He does.
OK one last comment, then I must work. I was blown away by the difference in statistics between the percent of Canadian boys who are circumcised versus the percent of U.S. boys! I was just reading yesterday that in the U.S. it fell from some 80% to 60-something% — and Canada is in the single digits? Wow. Go Canada!
Did someone really say that there are no side effects more serious than a bit of pain? Have you heard of David Reimer? If you were told a side effect of circumcision was loss of penis – would you still be so willing? Because it does happen.
To say circumcision is a parental choice – like breastfeeding, co-sleeping, discipline – is completely incorrect and disrespectful to our male-born children. Since when is unnecessary cosmetic surgery on un-consenting humans ok? We don’t allow this to happen to our female-born children nor do we expect them to undergo surgery without a whimper.
Even though you have said you were not comparing male genital mutilation to stoning/binding/honour killing/female circ – I think they *can* be compared. They are practices based on sexism and they harm people.
Foreskins are not some relic from “cavemen” days, no longer needed in our modern age. It protects the penis glands, the same now as it did then, underwear do not protect in any way shape or form. This is obviously spoken by someone who knows nothing physiologically about the penis – sex ed is schools is also obviously lacking.
Loss of penis is not a side effect of circumcision. Using David Reimer as an argument against circumcision is patently dishonest and disrespectful of the man, his family and what they had to live through.
Reimer lost most of his penis after the doctors performing the operation on him used a new instrument NOT intended for such purpose. Loss of the “remnants” were largely due to the influence at the time of Dr Money, whose “research” led him to believe that sexual identity/gender was not in fact biological, but rather social.
Reimer’s tragic life was a result of medical incompetence, not circumcision itself.
My son is currently waiting for a second (yes, second) circumcision, so I am more than aware that there are more serious side effects that “a bit of pain” (which is a gross misrepresentation anyway, even with anesthetics), but I think the debate should be kept at an honest level, with none of the scare tactics. Unless we all agree that tradition constitute a well thought-out argument.
@Marie: While I don’t think one needs to mention David Reimer in order to make a case against circumcision, I do think it illustrates the risk that comes with any medical procedure. Something could go wrong in any case. You don’t know how competent the doctor is. Whether the doctor got enough sleep the night before. Whether the doctor is dealing with something in his or her personal life that resulted in him/her using/taking something that could impair his/her judgment. Every single medical procedure has risks because doctors are human and humans make mistakes. So to go through a medical procedure for purely traditional or cosmetic reasons just seems like a stupid risk to me.
Homosexual men are not the most likely to get HIV/AIDS – it’s heterosexual wimmin, especially those of colour. They are the largest population of those affected.
That is the fastest growing GROUP affected by HIV, but it is still homosexual men who have the most new HIV infections (60%).
Cate, are you talking about the US or worldwide? I think Rashel is right – particularly if we are talking about the world. But I will go check.
Jake and Rashel: I meant in the U.S. (because this is where the CDC recommendation is proposed). Worldwide, certainly it could be the case that women of color are disproportionately affected by the disease. In the U.S., it’s still gay men, but women of color are the fastest growing population in new cases.
In either case, the studies cited don’t claim that circumcision lowers the HIV rate for either women or gay men. Actually, another recent study showed that men who are circumcised are slightly more likely to infect their partners.
(I blogged on it today.)
Ah, then we agree. I’ll have to go over to your blog.
I took my first HIV discrimination case in 1989, back when it was called the “gay plague” and few lawyers would represent people with AIDS. My clients were largely middle class white men driven into poverty by illness. My first case in fact was a suit against a health insurance company refusing to cover one of the first effective treatments for an AIDS-related opportunistic infection. Given the ages and nationalities of my clients, chances are good that the vast majority of them were circumcised.
We need education, condoms, and more research on microbicides (see http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/molecular_condom_aids_prevention_women_and_men_wont_even_know ). We don’t need more circumcision.
When we found out we were having a boy, the circumcision debate between my husband and I commenced. He was totally against it. I was indifferent. That made the decision easy. I did do some reading, however, and quickly realized that I could not do that to my son. He is now 15 months old, and I am so relieved that my husband had such a strong conviction. Sometimes, when I change the diapers of other baby boys, I realize how much skin is removed. With a baby, it looks like half the penis is head. Of course this is an issue of scale, but such a removal has to effect sensation.
One of my closer friends asked me and my husband to be the kvater and kvaterin at their newborn son’s circumcision. This is a place of honor in the ceremony. We, of course said yes despite our feelings on the matter. It was interesting to observe the ceremony up close. While ultimately I would urge someone NOT to circumcise if they asked, if they decide to, I would recommend using a Jewish mohel instead of a doctor. They are highly trained and it was a much better than being strapped down in a hospital nursery. Certain mohels circumcise non-Jews all the time.
And, no, health insurance should not cover such an elective procedure. This would quickly lower the number of circumcised in the US.
THANK YOU for your post, and your support. Intact America was on the ground in Atlanta this week, at the CDC’s HIV conference, and we believe that the activism of people like you has helped bring this issue — and all the ethical arguments inherent within it — to the forefront of the debate.
Thanks again!
Jennifer Konig
Senior Project Manager, Intact America
I couldn’t find words last night to express how great it felt to come across something as right-on and well put as this on the net. The links included are great.
The “rights” many of us believe we have and try so hard to protect are not really ours at all, but stolen from our kids. We had ours stolen in the same way, which I think is why we see that theft as being “normal” and “moral”, even. It’s hard for many of us to face, but the majority of those who came before us had an awful lot in their heads (and behavior) that was just upside down and backwards. All of it, so far as I’ve been able to see, was based in cruelty and relied upon “un-truth”. Wish I could avoid the use of the word “tip” here because I’m absolutely not interested in trying to be clever, but male circumcision is only the tip of the cruelty iceberg. It’s all just stupid, and as the “What doesn’t kill you” paper explains, all cruelty does is just manufacture more stupidity. So THANK YOU FROM EVERYONE FOR THIS VERY WELL DONE EFFORT!
What a wonderfully timely post!
Our first child, a boy, is due any day now (actually he was due yesterday). I am very lucky in that my husband, who is circumcised himself, was very happy to agree with me that circumcision for our son seemed completely unnecessary. My husband does not need to have our son circumcised for the sake of “tradition” or having his son “look like daddy”. Again, I’m very lucky to have such a wonderful, intelligent and thoughtful husband who actually makes decisions based on logic and research.
However, just the other day I had a phone conversation with my father where I was asked if we were planning to circumcise. I told them our plans, and suffered through a rather awkward conversation where my father told me about his own circumcision which happened when he was 17 or 18 years old. Apparently his foreskin would no longer retract; he didn’t seem to have any better details than “it just wouldn’t fit through anymore”. (I’d like to point out that I would have loved for this not to be an awkward conversation … my mother and I can talk about sex very openly, but my father, who my mom divorced when I was 6, and I have never exactly been that close… this was probably the first time we’d ever talked about anything related to sex!)
Anyway, it was an interesting story to hear, coming from my own father. However I don’t think it’s deterred my husband and I from our original decision. I’m sure that being circumcised at such a late age would all-round suck, as would any sort of surgery of that degree. But I firmly believe that it would have equally sucked to have the surgery as an infant… just because a man can’t remember being circumcised since it was done at such a young age doesn’t mean it didn’t hurt! I’m hopeful that my father can follow that train of logic, although I won’t hold my breath.
Anna, I’m reading this almost a year later, so I don’t know if you’ll ever see this reply, but I did want to respond to this.
It’s *very* likely that your grandparents were given the crazy medical advice common to the age…to retract the foreskin and clean underneath it at every diaper change. The newborn foreskin is fused to the glans, like a fingernail to the nail bed. So, your father probably had his foreskin torn away from his glans over and over and over, resulting in scarring, which is *very* likely to be the source of his inability to retract later in life. It’s heartbreaking to me that even those who didn’t/don’t cut off the foreskins of their sons were/are told to cause so much unnecessary pain and increase the risk of complications so badly.
I’m surprised that the Canadian rate is so low. We didn’t have our son circumcised, but I know many other families who did. The rates are in hospital, so I wonder if maybe more boys are circumcised later. Either way, I’m glad to see a downward trend.
I am sort of blown away by the CDC recommendations. Obviously anything we can do to reduce rates of HIV transmission is good. However, based on what I read using a condom is much more effective and less invasive. Plus, in my area at least, very few people are infected as a result of heterosexual sex. The highest rate of new infection is among intravenous drug users. So why direct funds toward circumcision? It makes no sense.
….I was just updating the post as you left that comment Amber. Looks like the rate is under 10% in hospital, but closer to 32% in total. Too high IMO.
Thank you! I hate with a passion the idea that because it’s “tradition” circumcision is magically OK. As if the sheer fact that it is a tradition makes the fact that a piece of a boy’s penis is removed suddenly disappears. We should, as civilized people, question the traditions handed down to us from a time when people though the sun circled the earth. It’s questions many of those traditions that made us civilized in the first place!
What a fantastic post. Persephone said things perfectly.
I do not, for the life of me, understand how so many mothers don’t see the error in this part of our culture; and how they don’t laugh at the “medical benefits” the CDC tries to make.
I suggest watching a video of a circumcision and watch a baby scream screams you have never heard choke on their own vomit, and then pass out from the pain; and then make the decision for your baby. And then decide then if it is a barbaric practice that has no business taking place.
Also, has anybody thought of why America would benefit from continuing such high circumcision rates? It is a big money business. Baby foreskin is in high demand for facial creams etc. I heard a statistic that one foreskin can bring in $100,000 in revenue. Who gets that money? Not the little boy who’s penis was ripped and cut and tortured, that’s for sure.
Yes – that is true. Crunchy Domestic Goddess also wrote about the foreskin issue: Babies’ foreskins used to make cosmetics. Is this ethical?
I actually mentioned the link to the cosmetic industry to my husband today. His reaction was disgust and horror. Although we have a little girl and no plans for another pregnancy anytime soon, I’m positive we’re in agreement on no circumcision when a baby boy comes into our lives, because if he forgets, I’ll just bring up the cosmetics thing again!
I completely agree. My first though when reading that CDC article was similar to yours – why not teach things like personal responsibility in sexual areas rather than putting out a blanket recommendation to circumcise?
However, I would also point out that traditional religious (Jewish) circumcision is nothing like the circumcision performed today. I touched on that in my own entry regarding why circumcision is unnecessary. As a Christian, I would never circumcise my sons, for traditional or medical “reasons”.
great book for jewish people like myself that were conflicted about the tradition vs. reason argument. after reading this book i very much fell on the side of reason. and then our baby came out a girl! so the discussion with my wife and family simply vanished.
http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Circumcision-Perspective-Ronald-Goldman/dp/0964489562
Anyone who reasons that circumcision is sound, “to be on the safe side” medically, should also be taking out babies’ tonsils & appendices as a routine, preventative measure.
I vehemently disagree with circumcision unless absolutely necessary.
It amazes me how many ppl will still try to argue *for* circumcision. It was never an issue in our household, DH argued a bit at first (felt his son should look like him), but given the boy wouldn’t have pubic hair for sometime, it seemed a ridiculous reason to lop off part of his penis (I mean really?!?!). My sister’s husband was circ’ed later in life, however, I don’t see the reasoning behind cutting something off b/c there may be a problem down the road… that would be like cutting off an arm in case you break it in the future. If anyone is on the fence about it, I would suggest watching a video of the procedure, or even line-drawings, it’s pretty horrific, hardly akin to piercing an ear!
susie
I live in a house with two boys. My five year old is circumcised and my 3 year old isn’t. We chose not to circumcise our second son becaue of the experience of my first. It was horribly painful and what an awful way to be introduced to the world! The AAP came out the year my son was born in 2006 stating that there was no reason to circumcise a child. No reason. Now with the CDC making this absolutely ridiculous decision to support circumcision more and more children will be unnessarily harmed. Instead of handing out more condoms, or educating them about the benefits of not engaging in dangerous sexual activities, we’re going to cut off small, delicate pieces of their genitals.
Brilliant.
Think everyone has said what I would.
Add me to the numbers of Jewish women who did not and would not circumcise her sons (all three of them). It is barbaric and has no medical justification. The evidence on HIV prevention with circumcision is inconclusive at best. I will teach my sons to use condoms instead of permanently altering their bodies.
I really enjoyed the post and all the discussion in the comments. Thanks for bringing up this topic.
We have a son and decided not to circumcise. It was an easy decision with no debate. I feel that cutting off any part of another person’s body is not my right. I don’t care if I’m the parent. I wouldn’t do that to my daugther and I wouldn’t do that to my son.
Great post. I would like to add, though, based on comments – don’t be so quick to shy away from comparing it to FGM. Even some of the groups working with FGM as their focus see (and are horrified by) the similarities. http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.php
I agree @Leah. I brought this up at an FGM conference for gender lawyers and barely made it out of the room alive. I thought someone was going to hit me – I was told (loudly) I was trivializing FGM by comparing it with male circumcision. Very good to hear not everyone feels that way.
I am horrified by male circumcision. I am horrified by female circumcision. I think they are both awful. But I just don’t have enough information to feel comfortable comparing the two. However, I do agree that there are a lot of similarities in the attitudes and rationales given for doing both. The link that you provided illustrates that very well.
This was a HUGE discussion during my pregnancy since my partner is Jewish and I am not. Initially I wasn’t too bothered by the idea but like Jill once I read up on it and realised the old’ it’s more hygienic’ argument is mostly based on hearsay rather than fact I decided against it. Every time we discussed it my partner would end up shouting – it was such an emotional issue for him. My rationale was that (a) I didn’t want to do that to my son, and (b) we had agreed to raise our child in a non-religious household so to start his life off by snipping off his foreskin in a nod to Jewish tradition seemed a bit wrong. But he couldn’t get past it so in the end because it was a much bigger issue for him than for me I told him he could decide – and that if he wanted to do it he’d be the one taking him to the doctor!
So anyway, it was never mentioned again until his Jewish parents came to stay and inevitably raised the question. My partner explained that as I had given him the freedom to make the choice he didn’t feel he could take away my freedom to choose not to have it done. Score! He’s taken some flack from it from his family but no worse than choosing to be with a non-Jew in the first place!
I am so glad we didn’t do it. It is one of those things that people have a knee jerk reaction to because, as you say, it’s embedded in cultural or religious traditions. This was very clear from the way my partner could not discuss this without getting angry for such a long time. It brought up a lot of stuff for him and it was hard to get past that and simply ask himself why we were going to have it done.
Just a note about circumcising later for “medical reasons”: my third son had a number of UTIs in his first year. After several test determined that there was nothing wrong, the “last resort” was circumcision. Our pediatrician told us that circumcised boys have *slightly* lower UTI rates *in their first year* and that after the age of one there is no difference (I never researched these stats myself, this is just what the pedatrician told me).
At the time my son was 8 months old and there was NO WAY I was going to permanently disfigure my son for “slightly” lower rates for a few months (until he turned one) and I am shocked that this reasoning is used to justify circumcision. Amazingly, this is a standard recommendation for boys who have unexplained UTIs.
Our son never had another UTI after about 8 months and is still intact, along with his two brothers.
Sort of like formula being a standard recommendation for breastfeeding difficulties. Or induction being a standard recommendation for a pregnancy that goes longer than X weeks.
my experience is almost identical to Keelie’s – DH is jewish, i’m not. we are not planning on raising our children in any religion. they can choose to convert to judaism when they are adults, and our son can choose circumcision at that time if it is important to him.
after much discussion in our household about circumcision i do still have some sympathy for those who do it for religious reasons – and with an experienced mohel. i am sure it’s still traumatic for the baby, and of course leaves him bereft of some foreskin for the rest of his life, but everything i’ve heard about brises sounds much kinder and gentler than the videos i’ve seen of it done in hospital. i acknowledge that for some people the compacts of their religion are so strong that they want to mark it on the body… in my researching, i found that the more radical style of circumcision done among jews now is a reaction to jews in ancient times trying to pass as gentiles due to very minor circumcisions – and considering what horrors jews have been subjected to as a people i can see how the thought of accepting that your child could be divorced from his history and tradition and pass as a gentile is pretty repulsive, too.
so i think i have some sense of the cultural context that traditional jewish infant circumcision happens in, but i still can’t accept that permanent alteration of an infant’s body when there is no medical reason and the child gets no say in the matter. i’d like to think if i were jewish and having a baby boy i would mark the occasion with a ceremony of dedication to my religion and welcoming my child into it, but leave the permanent body alteration up to the choice of my child when he reached adulthood. i feel the same about HIV prevention, too, since there are other good options for preventing and reducing the risk. just to bring up another hot-button topic, i have chosen some vaccinations for my kids, and i know those are lifelong choices i’ve made for their bodies that may or may not have medical benefit, but the alternatives are not as clear cut to me, pardon the pun! so i’ve chosen vaccination in a number of cases.
Excellent post on a very hot subject. The maternity ward that I work does do circs if parents want to pay the fee and the appropriate person is available to do the slicing. In my 3.5 years there I have been around for 2 circs. Apparently our ‘rates’ of circs have dropped at our hospital. Both of the ones I was around for were so that the baby would match his father.
One of the pediatricians was trying to discuss her thoughts again circs with a family. Her approach was to sort of shame them but I found her point interesting. She said that when the boy grew up and was changing with his buddies in the locker room he would look like the odd man out with no foreskin. Did they want their child to be to be the odd one out and look different cause circs were on their way out.
I think slowly circumcision will fade out. Well, I hope so at least.
@Mama in the City: Curious…which country are you in?
I need time to read through the comments but for starters, a question:
My hospital had a form that included one of the benefits of circumcision being a reduced risk of cancer. Any thoughts on this?
You said in one of your answers you do not feel pro-circumcision studies met your standards but if there are studies legitimate enough for hospitals to refer to them, I think they are worth including and then, if you can/wish to, refuting.
I have researched the penile cancer risk, and it is negligible. The risk of penile cancer is less than the risk of BREAST CANCER TO MEN.
The rate of penile cancer is .2 percent. The rate of UTIs in boys is 2 percent, and that is only in the first year. I wrote about many of the supposed medical “benefits” here:
http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/02/23/11-reasons-not-to-circumcise/
There is no reason a hospital or doctor should give you a medical reason to circumcise, especially as the AAP said the “Benefits are not sufficient” to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
Let’s let our boys go through the feat of being born without having immediate surgery, shall we?
http://blog.thenatureschild.com/2009/08/circumcision-what-will-cdc-say.html
@Candace: I didn’t include them because I do not have the medical expertise to refute them. However, one of the links that I did provide was to the Genital Integrity Policy of Doctors Opposing Circumcision. Their policy includes a page on the alleged medical benefits of circumcision and they refute each of them in turn, explain where those ideas came from, and provide evidence to support their claims (all referenced).
Here is the link to that specific page of their policy, which includes the cancer issue: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement03.html
I enjoyed this post but I must admit that I enjoyed reading the comments even more! (sorry Annie!)
@bananaramafoFin
No need to apologize Rosanna. I write with the intent of inspiring discussion and love it when the comments turn into an interesting conversation.
I also wish more people would think about Mama in the City has said. 30 years ago it was the norm for males to be cut at birth and the rare child who was intact was often teased and made fun of in the school locker room for being different. In the last 10 years or so (at least in Canada), as circ rates have dropped so that now the majority of born-males are intact, it will be the circ’s boys who are going to be teased. Fathers may want their boys to look like them but they will no longer look like their peers.
Exactly! How many kids do you know anyways that want to look like their parents?? By the time they are old enough to care, I think most would prefer to look nothing at all like their parents!
I made the “but he won’t look like his father” observation to my circ’ed non-Jewish mate prior to our first son’s birth. Suffice it to say my kids’ father was the first person I heard call male circumcision “genital mutilation” – he was far better educated on this pre-kids than I was. As soon as I saw what little boy penises look like, I had to laugh at ever having been concerned about this. It was many many years before my boys considered that their penises could look like daddy’s and now they think daddy’s looks odd. The first time my then-three year old saw a child’s circ’ed penis (his best friend was having a diaper change) he screamed, “Who cut his penis off!” An intact penis is not such an odd thing to see for boys of my kids’ generation (ages 9, 12, and 15), even in the U.S. When my eldest needed one of those “how you’re body is changing” books for adolescents, I was pleasantly surprised that the book’s assumption was that penises were intact and had a sidebar for those who had been circ’ed.
Good point! And how many years will it be before a child has a penis that looks like dad’s, like an adult’s anyway?
I guess I lucked out – my children’s father is intact. In fact, almost every man I knew in the city of Guelph was intact. Must be in the water …
@phdinparenting
Well, I am in Vancouver Canada!
I thought you probably were from Canada or somewhere outside the United States. I would have been very impressed if you worked at a US hospital and saw so few circumcisions.
You know why fewer boys are circumcised in Canada? It must be that damned national health care and the crazy waiting times. Y’all could just come down here to get those cut off…like you supposedly do for everything else!
Doesn’t it get tiring to watch America’s antics?
When I had my son’s tongue tie clipped the doctor asked if I wanted anything else clipped while I was there. I said “no thank you” and I am very glad I did. Turns out he botched up the tongue tie clipping and we had to have it redone 7 weeks later. Wouldn’t have been impressed if he had botched up my son’s penis.
I respect your opinion but beg to differ on the point that it is considered elective and not medically necessary by the government, therefore this supports your argument that it is not required (paraphrasing you I know). See the very recent arguments in Ontario re: in vitro. That has not been typically covered and it now being reconsidered very seriously. I just want to underscore that simply because our health care system doesn’t fund something, that should not be seen as an endorsement as to whether it is right/wrong or necessary or not. Other very important medical devices like birth control pills, IUDs etc. are also not covered which doesn’t make too much sense either.
Personally, after a lot of thought and discussion, we did circumcise. I was persuaded by the HIV argument and thought that even if there was a small chance of preventing my son from getting or spreading HIV, I should make that decision.
Ranae:
Routine circumcision is not medically necessary. If a problem occurs and circumcision is deemed to be the answer, I think it should be covered. I also believe that in vitro should be covered in the case of a woman that is not able to conceive without it. But I wouldn’t recommend routine in vitro for all women because some women have trouble getting pregnant. I just don’t see the parallel at all. Infertility results from a disability. Treatment for that disability should be covered.
With regards to birth control, I live in Quebec and it is covered under the provincial drug plan. Anything that isn’t covered under the provincial health plan would be covered under my private insurance that I use to top up what the government provides. I am glad that it is covered. There is a clear medical benefit to birth control, unlike circumcision.
In Ontario, birth control pills and all prescriptions are covered under the Ontario Drug Plan, on an income basis. Fill out a form, and from that point on, you just show your OHIP card to get free prescriptions. The deductible varies depending on income. 25 K per yr? everything is covered. 150K per year, you pay the first 10 grand of prescriptions, except for catastrophic cancer drugs, etc…
As to the comparison to in vitro? Ontario did cover it for years, fully funded it, drugs and all, until 1990, when it was delisted for budget reasons except for women with blocked tubes. It was never considered medically unnecessary.
I could really get infuriated at the comparison, actually. But I’m gonna hold back for now.
So, the place that I work 2 people do circs. It used to be 3. 1 OB, 2 GP’s. One day the GP did such a botch job on a newborns penis that she was left shaking and said she would never do another circ ever again and she never did. Who knows how the penis is now. Still botched probably.
More people need to hear what really goes on – Thank you for giving us behind-the-scenes side-effects (ie. botched circ’s) Mama in the City.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO POST THIS BLOG ENTRY!!!
I am sorry for shouting but I am, on behalf of all boys whose parents choose to mutilate their genitals without consent, eternally grateful that you put into words the thoughts that I repeat over and over and over again in my prenatal classes.
One poster suggested it doesn’t hurt. Words like that read like wishful thinking and a guilty conscience to me.
Our children need to know that we love them, care for them and will PROTECT THEM FROM HARM! When we remove body parts because we don’t think they are esthetically pleasing to look at or in the name of some “higher power” who might pass judgment on them someday then that is SICK! How can our children learn to trust us and feel safe with us when we breech that sacred connection within hours of their birth?
My MIL left her boys intact in a time when circumcision was routine, and she breastfed all her kids too even though formula was promoted as healthier. Just wanted to make a shout out to my MIL who for some reason never considered herself all that radical.
Simply put, medical or religious or personal views otherwise, the baby boy was born with a foreskin for a reason. That’s the way his genitals are supposed to be.
How come we never think twice about a baby girl’s genitals? All that “flappy skin” there that has to be cleaned all the time. There isn’t any reason to have labia, right? Might as well lop them off to make things look less flappy, eh? Of course not. The labia are there for a reason.
So why do we do that to baby boys? Their foreskin protects the penis, just like the outer and inner labia protects the vagina. It is like having an eye without an eyelid. There is a reason for the foreskin.
People say it is like tonsils and appendixes; they’re useless and have no medical or health benefits. But yet we’re born with them so they’re there for a reason. How come don’t we just remove the tonsils and appendixes of all babies? Same principles.
I’ve never understood any reasons or rationale for circumcision on baby boys. It is a purely cosmetic thing, and all the studies being done on it saying it prevents HIV, STDs, cancer, etc., have you noticed where they’re doing the research and the sexual activities of the men in the study? They never seem to do those studies in Canada, Scandinavia, Japan, China, or Australia. It is like saying if all women take birth control pills they will have less chance of getting ovarian cancer, but then factor in other health risks like increased risk of breast cancer or strokes and really, it doesn’t benefit one way or another.
Another thing, they never point the finger at the women, it is always the guy’s fault regarding HIV and STDs. Anyone ever stop and think the vaginal environment has more bacteria than the mouth? When it comes down to it, safer sex is what prevents HIV and STDs, plus less sex partners, not the lack of a foreskin.
Circumcision should be a cosmetic procedure like breast augmentation, face lifts, tattoos, and genital piercings. Let the boy decide when he’s reached the age of majority whether he wants to fiddle with his penis.
exactly! my mother tired to float the “it’s easier to clean a circ’ed penis” argument with me regarding my son, and i told her i’d always managed to keep my own “foldy” parts clean thankyouverymuch, and that was a ridiculous reason to justify lopping of the tip of my child’s penis!
like you said, if he wants to make the choice to do it for himself, he can–it’s his body. getting born is traumatic enough without elective and painful surgery on the most sensitive of parts!
(a child i know had to be re-circumcised after a first botched attempt. who needs THAT? poor kid.)
Ok I only read about half way through the comment’s so I don’t know if I’m rehashing MPOV but here it goes.
There is only one real reason to preform a circumcision. Religious.
-runs off to find links to articles supporting my POV-
-google-
-huh?-
-no way-
But wait… now I owe you big. I was completely ignorant. I guess there was a covenant that called for the mandatory circumcision of all male children but I just learned that the covenant was made null and void when Christ came. In fact if you have your son circumcised you are blocking him from god’s grace. (If I’m reading right)
I always assumed that when I had my children it was obviously a no brainer. I wanted to keep that covenant with god… now I believe I will be rethinking that decision seriously.
Thank you for the eye opener.
Just something to think about based on your “tweet” from yesterday. Circumcision is not “simply” about TRADITION for Jewish people, it’s about IDENTITY. You need to understand that before making claims about barbarism, etc. You can’t be a pHd in everything. This is very offensive.
Carly: As is female circumcision for the cultures that practice that.
Unlike female circumcision, Jewish/circumcised men, are not pleading for help and action. VERY different.
That’s but one of MANY differences between the two practices, of course. I’m done now. Have a nice life.
I used to be a regular reader/twitter follower. I’m totally turned off right now. You have no idea what you’re talking about. No hard feelings. Say what you want to say.
I’m sorry to hear that Carly. I believe that standing up for issues I feel are important is more important than pleasing everyone all the time. Unfortunately, that does mean that people get offended or turned off sometimes.
I think people like Carly who use religion as a way to explain male genital mutilation should re-read the original Qur’an / Bible / Torah. For example, in the Qur’an there is no mention that all women must wear the hijab or burka or not be educated or allowed to drive or this or that. I am positive at the start of civilization and writing down the “laws and doctrines” of the world circumcision was not practiced until some old men decided it was a fabulous way to cause undue pain to males while ensuring females continued to be subservient to males. Religion doctrines have been misconstrued over and over, and circumcision is just one of many mistakes done in the name of religion.
Annie,
I understand what you are saying and if we weren’t Jewish I would probably agree with you. BUT since we are Jewish we felt that we had little choice in the matter because without circumcision our son would not be considered a Jew and under the circumstances it was more important that he had the choice to embrace, connect or ignore our religion/ethnicity then the circumcision. We are not religious in slightest but we are still part of a group of people that have been persecuted, and killed for our religion and the only way to stand up against persistent anti-semitism is to stand up and say I am Jewish. So, while my husband and I always try to question tradition and we did not circumcise without considerable thought (and we did not do it at a Bris as a celebration but quietly at the hospital) we did it so that our sons would feel part of a group that is larger than themselves. Hopefully, by the time they have children the laws of circumcision will be revamped in Judiasm as well. But we are a “turtleneck” free house…
Emma:
Is there any place in Judaism for Jews to take a stand and insist on a different, more humane way of defining who is a Jew and who isn’t? I don’t understand why any community would consider non-medical circumcision to be an acceptable practice, but I especially do not understand why a group of people that has been persecuted and killed would accept the continuation of a ritual that involves harming their members. You mention your hope that the laws of circumcision will be revamped in Judaism, but what would the process be for making that happen? Would it not be an increasing number of Jews standing up and saying we will not do this and we will not accept you telling us that we are not Jews because we refused to do it? This is an honest question. I don’t understand how things get changed in religion, but in general in life I’m not one to sit around and hope for change. I try to push for it.
one doesn’t get to pick and choose when it comes to orthodox faith or “change” the things that don’t suit our sensibilities. as a christian, i believe that Jesus’ coming abolished the law of circumcision, but for jews, circumcision is still their religious law, as written in their scriptures and handed down from God.
even though i didn’t circumcise my child and agree with much of what has been said in this thread, i would never say that circumcision is barbaric, because for jews, it is a sign of God’s covenant with them and a symbol of what it means to be a people set apart. i think there is room to respectfully disagree without maligning jewish identity and faith tradition–which is what happens when we call circumcision “barbaric.” (i realize you didn’t use that word exactly, but other posters have and you never challenged the language.)
That is a good point and I’m glad that you are such a strong advocate for change. But we didn’t feel that we could ask the boys to take on the burden of being advocates for change. We can push for change on behalf of future generations but if (and I say this with dread) either of the boys wanted to be religious then circumcision would be a pre-requisite. (hmm…when I say it like that maybe it was the wrong decision) But if they are not defined as Jewish by the general consensus — it could impact who they could marry, if they wanted to move to Israel etc., and more importantly their general sense of self-definition within a Jewish family and culture. It would be making a decision for them about who they are and given our history we decided that we wanted them to be defined as Jewish without a question mark. And while I undestand your point that we made a decision about mutilation for them instead, I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree on this one.
If you wanted your boys to have a choice, then why did you take away their choice? That doesn’t make sense.
Any man can choose to be circumcised as an adult, for whatever reason he may have, including religion. He canNOT choose to have his foreskin back when someone else has taken it away from him. (Foreskin restoration does restore some of the function, and some of the protection of the glans…but it’s not true foreskin, so the man is still lacking the nerve-rich foreskin tissue itself.)
I’m sorry if I sound harsh, but forcing surgery on someone to preserve their choices is completely illogical.
Judaism is complex, that is for sure. Onliest thing I know about it is that there are a lot of schools of practice and belief, but that the pull of orthodoxy is strong– in any religion, there is a tendency for the “liberal” branch to become sloppy and decadent, which makes people pull back in the direction of the more “fundamentalist” branch. And I get the impression that that is what has happened with both Judaism and Christianity in the last three decades.
But there are more North Koreans than Jews on the planet, so I have no idea why people care so much about them. Er, relatively speaking, of course. Circumcision is bad, I suppose, but much less bad than mass starvation, say.
But most Americans don’t circ for religious reasons; it’s a fairly superficial kind of cultural issue. Most of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers weren’t cut, most of our husbands were, many of our sons aren’t, and more of our grandsons won’t be, either. Verily, it is a blip on our collective cultural radar.
I’ve talked a few people out of it by dispassionately explaining that the rates are dropping fastest among our most-educated and affluent classes. Status-striving is a serious motivator. Who wants your kid’s genitals to reveal his low-rent origins?
Anyway, when it comes to religion, the thing is, if you were raised in a traditionalist religion and bear the various marks that come from that upbringing, you do indeed have a different kind of life than you might have had if you’d been raised by people who thought you should “make up your own mind.”
BUT you are usually very glad that they made those choices.
That’s the thing about kids. You can’t just deliver them unscathed to the threshold of adulthood and turn them loose. You shape them whether you mean to or not! And so you may as well shape them in a way that honors the sacrifices of your ancestral past, and that you know has meaning to the community in which you are raising the kids.
Because they will probably grow up to be happy that you did, and sometimes the more they had to suffer to earn those distinguishing marks, the more they actually value them in adulthood.
Weird, hey?
This is actually not accurate in the case of Jews (I’m assuming that’s at least part of who you are talking about when it comes to religious basis for circumcision). Jewish ritual circumcision is not a tradition, it is actually Jewish law. A Jewish father is obligated to circumcise his sons period. If he doesn’t he’s actually breaking with Halacha (Jewish law), not Jewish tradition. I understand that it may be difficult for a non-Jew to understand the Jewish concept of observance of religious law. Religious laws are something that Western societies (and even some streams of Judaism) have pretty much tossed aside as optional – particularly when it comes to practices which have no science behind them proving that it is “worthy” of following. But that’s just not how it works for many Jews.
In fact what you said in your response to emma:
“I especially do not understand why a group of people that has been persecuted and killed would accept the continuation of a ritual that involves harming their members”
sums up the argument of many traditional Jews. There is scarcely a more fiercely and continuously persecuted people in the last 5000 years than the Jews. And yet here we still are even though so many of our persecutors are now nothing more than chapters in history books. A lot of us believe that it is our Torah, our laws and our traditions which are responsible for our survival as a nation.
I also want to point out that circumcision studies don’t necessarily apply in the same way to Jewish ritual circumcision – it is NOT the same technique that is done in hospitals and it is known to have different outcome rates than hospital circumcisions.
I think that last sentence of Lauren’s really is the key. Are we talking about routine infant circumcision as performed in hospitals, or are we talking about traditional Jewish circumcision? They are two entirely separate discussions. The technique is different, the timing is different, the outcome is different – you can’t argue against Jewish circumcision using routine circumcision arguments. They simply don’t apply.
Does Jewish circumcision permanently change a boy’s body without their consent?
Respecting religious laws – or even the regular law system- only works if the outcome is not barbaric. I think most people would agree that female circumcision is barbaric. Stoning your to death wife for infidelity – also pretty barbaric IMO.
Male circumcision is so commonplace that people don’t see it as barbaric. But that could also be related do perception and social norms. 50 years ago most parents though nothing of taking a belt to beat their child. Nowadays we wouldn’t dream of it. In some countries you can’t even smack your child without risk of prosecution. The perception has totally changed while the action itself remains exactly the same.
You can’t possibly compare male and female circumcision – they are two completely different procedures done for different reasons and with very different outcomes. And stoning is a method of murdering someone, so that’s hardly in the same league.
Again – I would urge anyone who just slaps the “barbaric” label on Jewish ritual circumcision to actually understand what is done and how.
My three-week old son spent 5 days in the NICU getting IV antibiotics. He was circumcised by a mohel who is also a surgeon who did the procedure with full local anasthesia. The baby slept through the procedure and did not cry after either. There were no bandages involved and he was healed in a few days. Again – no crying (other than hungry crying of course). When I compare that to what he went through the three times he had to have an IV inserted when we were in the hospital, well let’s just say the circumcision was pocket change.
Again – you can’t compare hospital circumcision to kosher circumcision – the procedures are different.
I agree that it would be barbaric to do it without anasthetic – it’s also barbaric to put an IV line into a baby’s hand without local anasthetic – but there’s no debate about that.
It is *because* I am Jewish that I understand the choices I have under Jewish law with regard to circumcision. Halacha makes many demands but it is not a system that deprives us or our children of their status as Jews if we disobey. Relatively few Jews circumcise their Jews because it is required by Jewish law – a “law” whose violation carries no penalty. The vast majority of Jews who circumcise their sons do so because of cultural tradition. Only fundamentalist Jews, those who do not turn on lights on the Sabbath, would consider themselves with no options regarding circumcision.
Barbarity is measured by more that a child’s cries. If you were to full anesthetize a child and amputate his arm, he would feel no pain. He would not cry. However, removing a healthy limb would still be barbaric.
Jews have a choice with regard to circumcision just like everyone else. Jews have continued to reinterpret Torah and refine Halacha. Circumcision is not something we have to do.
@Jake: *standing ovation*
Excellent comment Jake. Thank you.
Too bad – he has posted something that is inaccurate and also offensive to observant Jews (not using electricity on the sabbath does not make you a fundamentalist). What’s excellent about this comment – that he agrees with your viewpoint about circumcision?
That you would call someone who observes the sabbath a “fundamentalist” makes me wonder what version of Judaism you associate yourself with. That is plainly offensive.
I also think that it is a gross misrepresentation to speak on behalf of the “vast majority” of Jews – sure there are those who circumcise because it’s a tradition, but ask around – many do it because it’s Halacha.
You also misrepresent the Jewish idea of Halacha – we don’t only observe laws which have specific penalties outlined for them. The vast majority of Halacha carries no penalty – that doesn’t give you a free pass to ignore the laws!
I know that the reform movement provides a lot more leeway for ignoring Halacha than other movements, but that doesn’t make what you’re saying accurate. Currently Jews who want to observe Halacha with respect to circumcision do not have options. That may change in the future (although I don’t see how – it’s a pretty clearly spelled out commandment), but as of today, what you are saying is not accurate.
We seem to be using laws to skirt round the original argument of why circumcision might not be appropriate. The Bible says thou shalt not kill as a pretty central tenet to the Christian religion but that didn’t stop the death penalty being brought into law in many US States that consider themselves as strongly Christian.
Just because someone tells you do something and you choose to do it nicely it doesn’t make it okay!
FYI, I am a “she.”
“Fundamentalist” is the following of a literal and immutable interpretation of religious text. While I will admit there is a difference between the Christian Fundamentalist “God created the world in six days” and the Jewish Fundamentalist prohibition of using electric light on the Sabbath because the Torah commands that Jews not work, the distinction is only that there has been one level of interpretation (because the Torah predates the electric light), these are both Fundamentalist practices.
The majority of Jews in the world today are either secular or observe Jewish culture and tradition to a greater or lessor extent. While the degree of autonomy given to the individual in following the many many Jewish laws varies from sect to sect, no major one either excludes non-circumcised Jewish children or their Jewish parents. One’s status as a Jew is unaffected by whether or not one chooses – and it is indeed a choice – to circumcise ones children. Orthodox Jews (and that is what I mean by Fundamentalist) *do* exile community members for some violations of Halacha. Depending on the community, such violations may include touching a man if you are menstruating or have not been ritually cleansed of the menstrual impurity. To my knowledge, failure to circumcise is not an offense that leads to being exiled from even the most Orthodox Jewish community but I could be wrong. If so, it is highly unlikely that any members of those communities are reading this blog.
Observing *any* Halacha is a choice. In the U.S., outside of a few communities in New York, I doubt you could fill an auditorium with Jews who know what Torah or Talmud has to say about circumcision. other than the Bar or Bat Mitzvah Haftorah, how many Jews in the U.S. have read any Talmud at all? It is not Halacha that leads to all the catered Bris – it is tradition.
I came across this recently and thought of this post. I’m sure most people have seen this; it’s an open letter to “Dr. Laura” who is Jewish and has spoken openly about her feeling about homosexuality (according to her beliefs). She refers to gays and lesbians as a “mistake of nature” and a “biological error”.
It makes me think of this post because the points made in this letter can also apply to the circumcision debate. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
Why is Dr. Laura’s religion relevant.
Taking direct quotes out of the bible (and who knows which translated version) isn’t really relevant to Jewish law because it ignores thousands of years of the rabbinic tradition (which in a nutshell is process of interpretation and refinement that resulted in the sources of actual Jewish law – which is why so much of Jewish law is NOT reflected by quotes of the bible).
Jeez… people want to criticize Judaism or Jewish law? Get at least a basic, cursory understanding of how it works first….
Quite honestly, I’ll criticize *any* law that requires a parent to chop pieces off their infant’s body. I’m sorry this happens to be a religious issue, but requiring a parent to observe a covenant of any kind in his/her *child’s* flesh is something I’m critical of. It doesn’t matter if I understand the ins and outs or not.
Why is Dr. Laura’s religion relevant? I thought that was obvious. Dr. Laura’s religion is relevant because she speak out against homosexuality in the name of her religion and because the examples in the open letter to Dr. Laura are biblical references taken from Judaism, are they not?
Those same biblical references can also be used in this circumcision debate. You could take out the words “homosexual lifestyle” in the first paragraph, and replaced them with “circumcision”.
I am NOT criticizing Judaism or Jewish law. The point I am trying to make (and the point that has already been made in the comments here several times) is that if a person circumcises in the name of religion, does that person also follow the religious writings and laws perfectly — the open letter gives examples of Jewish biblical references that I’d guess most people do not follow.
To quote from the link I posted above “The ‘letter’ to Dr. Laura may or may not have actually been sent to her, but in any case, it is best read as an essay offering a counter to the ‘homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so’ argument [the same could be said for the 'circumcision should be done because the Bible says so' argument]. Though it purports to be addressed to just one person (Dr. Laura), it is clearly meant for a general audience.”
And if it matters, the following link talks about which versions of the bible the verses are taken from and lists the biblical verses themselves: http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/laura.htm
But I actually think that misses the point. I’d be surprised if any person of any religion follows it’s rules and laws exactly. The Catholic Church is opposed to birth control and any sex unless the purpose is to procreate. In fact, it is considered a mortal sin. But plenty of good Catholics use birth control and have sex all the time. (See, I’m not just picking on one religion, it’s just that in this post and this discussion Judaism happens to be the religion that is being discussed.) Of course, the difference between using birth control and circumcision is that infant circumcision permanently alters a person’s body without their permission.
Are you serious? So because she’s Jewish, she represents Judaism’s views? Do David Duke or Pat Buchanan represent what Christians think?
The examples in the open letter appear to be taken from some English translation of the bible – who knows which one – so I have no idea what you mean by “taken from Judaism”. If the writer had quoted the Torah directly, I suppose you could use the phrase “taken from Judaism”, but he didn’t and the last time I checked Christians use the bible too.
The point is that quotes in the bible aren’t the reason why Jews do what they do. Jews have laws that are based on the rabbinic tradition. Circumcision is one of them, but slavery is not allowed in Judaism despite that quote from the bible (which people who are ignorant about Jewish law apparently take as proof that Jewish law is irrelevant).
It’s not missing the point. I get that the point is that not everything that is written in the bible is relevant to our lives today.
What you don’t understand is that Jewish law, while derived from the bible isn’t just whatever is written there. It’s a lot more complicated than that – it is something that evolves and changes constantly (and still is) over thousands of years. And it’s systematic, not just something that gets revised because Western culture finds something distasteful or out of fashion.
And just because people who follow a religion do or do not follow its doctrine, doesn’t actually alter the doctrine. It just means people choose not to follow it.
Judaism has (and has had for over 2000 years) rabbinic courts and processes by which laws are reviewed and revised because modern life demands it. That open letter is not relevant to Jewish law and in fact it’s an insult to anyone who actually takes religion seriously.
Ummm, are YOU serious? I NEVER said that Dr. Laura represents Judaism’s views.
Anyway, open letter aside, the bottom line for me is that I will never think it is okay to permanently change a person’s body without their consent in the name of religion.
I’m not sure an argument about the similarities between the bible and Judaic law really matter much to this discussion about whether it’s okay to circumcise. Interesting though the point that ‘Judaism has (and has had for over 2000 years) rabbinic courts and processes by which laws are reviewed and revised because modern life demands it.’
So as we progress as a society Judaism has progressed with it. That means just because something is written in Judaic law it is not set in stone. It sounded previously as if once something was written in Jewish law, that’s it and you must follow it – but you also admit there is room for change and re-interpretation.
So, there is the possibility of admitting that circumcision might not be the best token of membership for young boys. Is choosing to remain genitally intact a passing fad? Is it because Western culture finds circumcision distasteful? Maybe so – but it could also be symbolic of a change in our underlying moral and cultural code. Do babies have the right not to undergo an unnecessary surgical procedure (whether it is done ‘nicely’ or not)? Or do we have the right to make this choice for them whatever our reasons?
I guess this is a whole other discussion. As parents we constantly make decisions on behalf of our children. But the least we can do is question why we are making those decisions. And in this case, I saw no reason to submit my son to this process. My partner is Jewish so we discussed it long and hard. In the end he got so upset every time we talked that I gave the decision to him, ensuring he knew my feelings. Luckily for me he chose to respect my views and we didn’t do it.