Home -> Politics/Society -> Circumcision | ||
Cutting Away the TruthA view on one of the very first parenting decisions -- circumcision. |
||
| |
||
"Circumcision" is a frightening word for most males, who would prefer to keep sharp objects away from their "special parts". But it is an issue that needs to be confronted, and we have to look at both sides to do so. There are certainly benefits in having a circumcision performed on an infant, but do these benefits make up for possible negatives? Many of these benefits are, in fact, contrary to what a lot of "circumcisionists" claim.
For instance, the claim of hygiene benefits. Without a foreskin, cleansing of the penis is much easier, which lessens the risk of infections and/or cancer. However, this hygiene benefit is not extremely beneficial. Some scientists have shown that the smegma that would naturally accumulate under the foreskin is not necessarily a health risk at all. Smegma is common to all mammals, and does not appear to cause problems in animals other than humans. It is, therefore, logical to assume that the problems in humans are nonexistent. Even if these hygiene benefits are real, the same hygiene benefits can be reached by retracting the foreskin and lightly cleaning with soap and water, once a child is able to do this on his own (never forcibly retract your child's foreskin for cleansing, as this can be extremely damaging and painful). Most responsible parents should agree that they'd rather have a child capable of cleansing himself than one who has to rely on a bodily modification to stay clean. It has also been stated that circumcised males have a lesser chance of contracting cancerous tumors of the penis. Indeed, the research that originally allowed this assumption did show that circumcised males had fewer incidents of penile cancer than did non-circumcised males. However, this research has been heavily criticized, as it did not factor several important variables into the study. For instance, the researchers failed to include such things as hygiene, prolific unprotected sex, and cigarette smoking. The only two benefits that seem to be true are the most beneficial. In studies of African men, circumcised males were 60% less likely to receive HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) from female partners. This is an important benefit, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. There, HIV has reached epidemic proportions, with 23.68-28.8 million people living with HIV. However, circumcision is no replacement for sexual education. We cannot rely on circumcision to reduce the HIV crisis, which has become a global problem. In any case, there are far more reliable and more effective means of controlling the spread of HIV than through circumcision. Beyond the possible health benefits, it is important to examine the moral and ethical issues of circumcision. Should we, based on scant evidence of benefits, truly decide to body modify our children? This is a complex issue. On one side, there are various religious denominations that hold circumcision to be mandatory. Religious diversity and culture are important parts of humanity, and it would be wrong to try to change the religious belief in circumcision. However, this does not change the actual orientation of the act itself. In some places, female circumcision was, and is, still practiced as a religious and/or cultural norm. We have recognized that female circumcision (or, more aptly, female genital mutilation) is an immoral act. This is for reasons that do not exist for male circumcision. Female circumcision can cause the female to lose all pleasure involved in sexual activity, and can even cause depression or other psychological disorders. There is little evidence for such things occurring post-circumcision in males. We can still examine the issue for moral or ethical inconsistencies using an anecdote. Imagine, for a moment, that in your country a new religious group arises which commonly practices the removal of both pinky toes from the feet of their infants shortly after birth. There are no detectable problems associated with this "toe circumcision". In fact, later in life, it is shown to have a few benefits. Soon, this process of toe circumcision becomes a common undertaking in hospitals after a baby's birth. Well over 60% of all babies are now toe circumcised shortly after birth, most out of purely cultural issues. Stepping back into reality, can you honestly imagine this actually happening? First, it is unlikely because people generally fear novelty that they have no insight into, such as new religious movements. Secondly, people might fear the act itself. But why could this not happen? The removal of pinky toes actually has no effect on gait or any other noticeable detriment. It has no benefits either, but if it did, why would toe circumcision not grow in popularity? The simple answer is because it is not already popular. Circumcision was already a common thing in America before it rose to high levels it is today. There had been some minor evidence for the beneficial aspects of circumcision, and doctors recommended this process to new parents. Because doctors were widely trusted, most parents went along with the suggestion of the doctor, leading to the growth in popularity of circumcision. Now that circumcision has been shown to be so widely non-beneficial, why does it continue as a common practice, especially in the U.S.A.? Merely because people don't know any better. Fathers had it done to them, and rather than accept new evidence that it really doesn't help (and can harm, in some cases), they continue the chain for little reason. Misplaced optimism and hope that what they did to their child was a good thing leads to parents ignoring evidence. The finality of the situation, of the act, leads to bias. No one wants to believe that they made a mistake, especially one that cannot be remedied. In light of this, why should you circumcise your child? There is no real reason, beyond its popularity. And why should popularity dictate how you raise your child? Since when has mass opinion truly been an indication of what is right? If you are circumcised, why not break the chain with your child? If you are not circumcised, why circumcise your child to begin with? Humans are an irrational species. It is our struggle for reason and logic that makes us special. Let us struggle for reason and logic in the area of circumcision. For further information, see these books, research papers, and web-resources:
|
||
|
||
5 Responses to "Cutting Away the Truth"Leave a comment: | ||
|
||
Home -> Politics/Society -> Circumcision |
| ||
IMPERFECTION IN YOUR INBOX
 | ||
 | ||
| ||
POPULAR RIGHT NOW
Coffee or Tea, Which One is for Me? When I registered as an Independent, I did so because... read more » The Ides and Crooked Teeth of March According to the old saying, the month of March usually... read more » Why I'm tired of the GOP There's no doubt (except perhaps among loyal listeners... read more » |
"Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it." -- Salvador Dali
Home
| Columnists | Features | Blog | News | Tips | Tools | Community Archives | Store | Online Education Center | Business Directory
About The Imperfect Parent | Submission Guidelines | Press | Contact Us | Advertise on The Imperfect Parent | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
About The Imperfect Parent | Submission Guidelines | Press | Contact Us | Advertise on The Imperfect Parent | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
All original content © 2002 - 2010 The Imperfect Parent™ and Tiny Tantrums Media. The Imperfect Parent and Mominatrix are trademarks of Prudentia Communications Group.
The views, opinions and information expressed in articles and blog posts published on imperfectparent.com and all subdomains are those of the authors alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of The Imperfect Parent or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of any entity of, or affiliated with, The Imperfect Parent and Prudentia Communications Group. The Imperfect Parent is designed for entertainment purposes only and is not meant to be a substitute for medical, health, legal, or financial advice from a professional.
Reproduction of material from any of The Imperfect Parent's pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. The Imperfect Parent and Tiny Tantrums are trademarks of Prudentia Communications Group.
1. Alan
Jun 12, 2006 16:35
Hear, hear! I was lucky enough to be born overseas, to American parents, who had gotten used to my natural equipment by the time they returned home a few months later. I don't believe in God, but if I did I'd sure thank him profusely for sparing me. Ugh, that would really suck to be circumcised (no offense to those who are--you had no choice).2. S. Anderson
Nov 02, 2006 09:34
The only negative to your fine article is the reference to the HIV/circumcision study done in Africa. NO major scientific journal has agreed to publish this study for deep flaws. In addition, Sweden has an almost 100% intact population and the lowest incidence of HIV infection in the civilized world. Poverty, education and sexual practice cause the spread of HIV - the presence of the foreskin is irrelevant to this disease.Thank you for the article. The practice of cutting off a healthy, funcitoning portion of infant genitalia (male or female) has got to end.
3. cosmopolite
Mar 01, 2007 00:43
Circumcision has fallen out of favour where you live, Canada, because the taxpayer usually won't pay for it. Routine circumcision is easy money for minor surgery. It dies when national health systems refuse to pay for it.I definitely agree with the thrust of your article. But you do not sufficiently emphasize that the foreskin alone does not cause medical mischief, other than a higher rate of urinary tract infections in baby boys (this higher rate is much lower than that for girls). To get trouble, a foreskin has to be combined with promiscuous unprotected sex. Throw condoms or fidelity into the equation, and an intact man will have a healthy and happy life.
It should also never be forgotten that AIDS is much more serious in the circumcised USA than in intact Europe. It may be the case that circ could blunt the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa, but that fact should not be generalised to the North Atlantic nations.
Incidentally, condoms engineered in the USA are somewhat painful to put on an intact penis. Condoms also suppress the mobility of the foreskin. Some claim that this mobility is a major source of pleasure for both partners. Hence if intact is going to become the norm, condoms will have to be redesigned.
4. beta mum
Jun 27, 2007 12:30
I didn't realise so many American men were routinely circumcised, and not even for religious reasons.How on earth did it happen?
5. r_dawkins
Nov 02, 2009 20:36
First, well done on the article. Too many North Americans won't breach this topic, or point out the junk science that gave rise to a resurgence in circumcision (it wasn't prevalent in pre-Victorian N. America). And well done commentators, for calling the author out re: the AIDS issue. I should like to add that it would be true that leg infections would drop drastically in the case of double amputees; circumcision & AIDS/HPV enjoy a spurrious relationship.But I would also like to point out another error, namely where you suggest that the sexual pleasure aspect of female circ. does not also hold true in the male case. False. Foreskin contains many, many pleasurable nerve endings. Moreover, by amputating the foreskin, the head of the penis becomes desensitized over time as a result of rubbing on clothing, thereby further lessening male sexual pleasure. This was why American religious sects supported Dr. Kellog's bogus medical theories- because masturbating was viewed as a sin. Overall, however, thank you for shining light on this issue, author, we need more people who are willing to do so.