Advice from three of our guy friends. This week they answer the following: What do you think about circumcision?
Gay Engaged Guy (Joel Derfner, author of Swish): I know one person who was circumcised as an adult, so he’s the only guy I can think of who knows what it’s like both ways — sort of the Tiresias of circumcision — but he’s also a famous actor and I have a huge, huge crush on him, so if I tried to ask him about it I would probably die of embarrassment. From a purely objective standpoint I suppose I’d say it’s a barbaric practice, but as a Jew I can’t imagine being uncircumcised. A gay Jewish friend of mine was the sperm donor for a Jewish lesbian couple, and when the issue of circumcision came up (in the event that they had a boy) it almost ruined the whole thing — my friend wanted his son to look like him, which I think is perfectly understandable, and the couple wanted not to mutilate their child, which I also think is perfectly understandable. They had a girl, so the point was moot, but I myself intend to avoid the whole issue by remaining blissfully childless forever.
Straight Single Guy (L.A. Chris): My friend recently asked whether he should circumcise his boy, and we found we were both passionately for it. But his wife was strongly against it (and she’s Jewish, go figure). We all did some research and found out that it’s generally healthier to be circumcised, so they decided to do it. But it’s a strange internal debate, because if you consider yourself anything close to a naturalist, then it’s almost hard to convince yourself of such a permanent and personal alteration of our time-honored design.
Straight Married Guy (Fred): As an adult you can’t really do anything about your own situation (grown men who get circumcised are nuts), so really what is there to discuss when it comes to sex? They both work great. It only really becomes an issue when you’re about to have a baby boy. “To cut, or not to cut” becomes your decision — and it’s a biggie. On the one hand, no one wants their kid to be singled out and branded a weirdo in the locker room if they’re in the uncircumcised minority; on the other hand, why would you ask someone to take scissors to your baby’s penis? Ultimately, “normal” is what you know, and so I think most fathers want their sons to be like them, which means in most cases the clipped will opt to cut and the sheathed will choose to let it be.
Our “wise guys” are a rotating group of contributors, some of whom wish to remain anonymous and some of whom like the attention. This week’s Gay Engaged Guy is Joel Derfner, author of Swish. To ask the guys your own question, click here.
I never said I plan to have my son circumcized precisely for that reason. It was just the reasoning given to me by men who wished they had been circumcized as infants. It was in response to people who keep insinuating that no man who has an intact foreskin could possibly be upset that his parents left it that way. On top of that, I know the men I personally know are not alone, because there are support groups for men who feel exactly the way they do.
My FIL is fairly certain that his particular issues are genetic issues relating in part to low functioning immune systems, as well as some other stuff (which is exactly how he has explained it to me… sorry I can’t be more clear). He believes it’s genetic as his brother and father both experienced more mild cases of the same problem in the years leading up to puberty. They, thankfully, did not require surgery.
FGM is done with malicious intent. It is done in cultures where women are property and so is virginity… and it is done to make sure that a woman will not be remotely interested in sex, and in some cases, specifically to make sex more painful for her. On top of that, it is usually done in a non-medical situation (i.e. a sharp rock out in the middle of nowhere) and generally just before she hits puberty. If a doctor wanted to take my 10 year old son to Congo and cut off his foreskin with a rock, I would not allow him to do so. If my doctor – for a legitimate medical reason (i.e. probable debilitating genetically caused infections) – wanted to trim the clitoral hood of my infant daughter in a hospital, I would probably not object.
Like I said before – I am not trying to say that my situation or choice is the best choice. I am saying that for me and my future family, this seems like the best decision. All I am saying is that there really are people who do have to have this done, or are fairly certain that their kid WILL have to have this done… and in that case, they are doing what is medically sound for their child. Not mutilating.
Elizabeth-
I am sorry to hear about your FIL. He is a rare case and I would be curious to know why he had this particular, rare, problem with his penis.
The problem is that you don’t know what you son would want. Once you make the decision the foreskin can’t be put back on. And making this decision because of shallow American women is a really bad reason. Since the circumcision rate in the US is now 57% it is almost as likely that a woman would be turned off by a cut penis. BTW, the term “mutilation” is as applicable to a guy that has part of his genitals unnecessarily cut off as it is to a girl. Remember… a foreskin becomes 15 square inches of sensitive tissue in the adult male. That is more skin than is removed from most FGMs.
Actually, American doctors as a whole DON’T recommend circumcision. http://www.aap.org/publiced/br_circumcision.htm How old is the doctor who told you there’s a measurable medical benefit? That may be a factor.
My FIL was not a myth. Maybe it’s uncommon, but it did actually happen to him. My Fiance has seen the medical records that prove it. I never said his situation was one that was quite common, and I have no idea if his infections were caused from not cleaning or something like that – just that they happened 9 or 10 times a year for 3 years and then not at all after he was circumcized. And on top of that – when he was circumcized, it was after 3 rounds of intravaneous in hospital antibiotics didn’t make the infection leave. Doctors will remove infected tissue – no matter where it is – if they can’t make the infection heal.
Oh – and the “just cut off your son’s penis” argument is just ridiculous. It’s not nearly the same thing.
Like I said, I don’t really see this as something to argue about… Because the fact of the matter is, medical doctors (in this country at least) consistently recommend circumcision. No, I don’t know why… But I do know that for the most part, I take my doctor’s reccommendations. Perhaps the cleaning thing is a myth, like you say, but my doctor says it’s not. And I’m sorry, but I trust his medical degree (the one I absolutely KNOW he has… sorry, you just claiming to have one doesn’t cut it) to random opinions on the internet.
I know that there are people that feel really strongly about this matter… And honestly I don’t. I just feel really strongly about being told that I’m considering mutilating my son’s genitals. It’s not even close to the same horrific practice as FGM. Someday, if my kid wants to sue me for his lost sensation he can go ahead… If he actually CARES that it happened, then maybe it’s an issue. But most men don’t. In fact, I know a couple of uncircumcized men who actually wish their parents had – because they don’t WANT to have that extra bit (they both have said it’s turned women off, or made them treat them like a novelty toy in a bad way), but they don’t really want to remember it happening. It goes both ways.
E-
Do you understand that ALL unnecessary genital cutting on girls is illegal? You don’t have to cause long term harm to go to jail. Do you realize that a parent can remove what will become 15 square inches of functional, sensitive tissue from a boy’s genitals for NO reason at all? Would you be opposed to a parent that just wanted to remove a girl’s clitoral hood (about 1 square inch of tissue) because they desired that it be gone? A girl will still be able to orgasm, right?
I understand if you want to assert there are medical benefits that must be weighed before a boy can be circumcised, but there is no criterion for doing so. A parent need not consider ANY medical reasons. In fact, it has already been mentioned here that parents often do it just because of how they think it looks or what women might think in the future. If you want to make a compelling medical argument I think you would need to show some sort of significant medical benefit from infant circumcision. We already know from non-circumcising countries that no such significant benefit exists.
The ETHICAL issues regarding FGM and MGM can be compared because boys have the same right to genital integrity as girls have.
While I do not discount the statements made by individuals asserting that circumcision of males should be a choice because it is every person’s right to determine their bodily integrity, I do think there is an unfair comparison when putting it next to FGM.
FGM is done for a myriad of reasons, depending on the culture, with the primary reason being that “circumcision” of the woman prior to puberty will control illicit behavior and keep a girl pure until marriage. In my opinion, this is nothing like circumcizing the penis to prevent infection and promote better hygiene (the main reason parents may opt for circumcision when it is not of religious nature.)
FGM is a horrific practice that is not carried out until the girl is older and then must endure being forced, often physically restrained, through this ritual. In many parts of Africa, including the one I worked in for 2 years, this was done around the age of 8 or 9. I’ve pasted below an excerpt from the World Health Organization’s website on FGM regarding the 4 most commonly practiced forms. In East Africa, where I worked, infibulation is the predominant practice. The girl’s clitoris and labia are cut off and then the opening to the vagina is sewn up leaving a very small hole to allow urine and menstrual flows. This type of FGM causes a host of health issues, not to mention the girl must be cut open in order to be penetrated by her husband on their wedding night.
So, forgive me if I don’t think male circumcision compares in the slightest to FGM.
Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types:
Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, rarely, the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris) as well.
Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina).
Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, and sometimes outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.
Reese- Are you really advocating circumcision as a good way to prevent HIV infection? Do you realize that even if circumcised you must still wear a condom to get full protection. If this is the case then why advocate circumcision at all? What it does is give someone a false sense of security. If a circumcised man is going to have unprotected sex, even at a 50% reduction, it is only a matter of time before he get infected if he continues to take part in risky sexual practices. If you look at the African studies, you will see that there is a relatively small difference between the numbers of HIV infected circumcised vs. uncircumcised (tens of cases out of thousands in a study). This difference could easily be attributable the additional counseling and followup on safe sex practices. In addition, don’t forget, circumcision provides no protection for a woman if the man is already infected with HIV.
As a circumcised man, I can certainly understand that most men don’t feel wronged by circumcision. I think there are a number of reasons why this is. First of all, most circumcised men don’t know what they are missing. It was not until I started researching this topic, when my wife was pregnant, that I realized what had been done to me. And it isn’t just about lost sensitivity, it is about the change in the functioning of the penis with the loss of “gliding action” of the foreskin. (Google ‘foreskin anatomy noharmm’ to learn about this) I think another reason why men won’t talk about these harms is because it would mean understanding at a deep level that their genitals were harmed, and that the harm was caused by a direct action of their “loving” parents. There are psychological reasons why most men don’t want to even consider these things.
One last point… does it creep you out at all that parents are cutting up a child’s genitals out of a fear of what they might do sexually in 15 or 20 years? What if a boy grew up and chose to not have sex until he got married? What if they develop a HIV vaccine in 10 years? Why should boys be punished with a mutilated penis? Do parents REALLY need to be concerned about this stuff when a guy is fully capable of taking part in the consent process prior to becoming sexually active? Wait until a guy is old enough to make the decision for himself where he can weigh the options against his own personal values. It is obvious that parents circumcise in infancy because the boys can’t complain and they can’t fight back. It is one of the first acts of bullying that a child experiences. Oh, and don’t compare this to the HPV shot. That is given at an age where a child could say “no, I’m not interested” and it does not involve removing a functional part of her genitals. BIG difference.
James. I don’t blame you for leaving the debate. You have expressed a lot of opinions but have not really defended any claims. What exactly is wrong with intolerance when the intolerance is against those that want to unnecessarily cut off part of a boy’s penis? Should we be tolerant of unnecessary genital cutting? I certainly don’t think so. Did I not affirm my position that adult circumcision hurts and so does infant circumcision? Can you explain why you think infant circumcision is any less painful than adult circumcision? This debate is not about what a parent can get away with. It is about leaving decisions to individuals whenever possible… especially when the decision is removing a normal, healthy, functional, sensitive part off the genitals without medical cause. I also explained how there are similarities between ethical concerns of FGM and MGM. If you want to show that no comparisons exist you must show why they ethics of unnecessary genital cutting of girls cannot also be applied to boys.
I haven’t heard of anyone dying from the HPV shot–where is a reliable source that states this? Sounds a little exaggerated. You can rarely prove a direct correlation between these things.
well, if you were to actually read some of the ‘foreskin’ studies, you might see that the preferred form of sex is ‘dry sex’ or sex where the woman is not lubricated. Women actually use stuff like alum to dry their vaginas—one might think that in those circumstances, absence of friable tissue might be an advantage? In addition, there is a sociological bias in those groups that practice circumcision–towards less indiscriminate sex. Which would, I think, tend to make those who do indulge more careful…..
Lisa, if you foget how to get there, here is your favorite thread:
Writer Defends Adulterers, Calls the Rest of Us “Holier Than Thou”
Yes Lisa, go to your thread, the cheaters thread, and see who is a riot … you are funny.
You would not miss an opportunity to stab others right?
I really think you need professional help.
Good night Lisa. 🙂
Not everyone feels like you do Tally. I wish it had been done when I was younger so I would not remember. I have never met any guy who felt so wronged he needed to join some missing foreskin support group. Most people I know don’t give it a second thought. I agree that everyone should have safe sex, but that is not reality. There is a very real AIDS epidemic. If having babies circumcised reduces their risks in the future then parents should consider the procedure. Parents have decided to give young girls the HPV shot even though some had bad side effects, and some even died. Parents trying to protect their kids make these kind of choices all the time. What I do with kids is my business, thank you very much.
It does not matter if being circumcised reduces the chances of getting HIV. Babies do not have sex. Let the adult man decide if he wishes to have a portion of his sex organ removed by circumcision. If the man is smart, he will wear a condom when having at-risk sex with his foreskin.
Many men are finding out that they miss their foreskin. They, like me, are restoring their foreskin to regain what was taken from us at birth. See http://www.RestoringForeskin.org to read stories of men who wish they had never been circumcised and are doing something about it.
Also, many of those men are very upset with their parents for having them circumcised. This is particularly true of the younger men, who can easily research circumcision on the Internet and wonder why their parents ignored the evidence available to them.
Actually Lannie you could not be more wrong. It actually cuts your risk in half even without protection. Just look it up. There are numerous studies on this subject. This is why there is a big push to have the procedure done on adult males in Africa.