Whether or not to circumcise your baby boy generates a lot of debate. It’s one of those issues that incites the Mommy Wars, like breastfeeding vs. formula feeding and letting your baby cry it out! Recently I’ve gotten some questions from moms about how I handled circumcisions with my three my sons.
First, a few quick facts. Circumcision rates in the U.S. have declined in recent years — about 80 percent of baby boys were circumcised in the 1970′s and the rate was at 55 percent in 2010 (that only reflects in-hospital circumcisions).
The American Academy of Pediatrics doesn’t make a recommendation one way or the other on whether or not you should circumcise. But in a 2012 statement, the AAP the health benefits of circumcision — prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, HIV and other STD’s — outweigh risks like bleeding, infection and injury.
Strong opponents of circumcision (self-described “intactivists”) question the medical benefits and also say the AAP ignores the barbarism of the procedure and the associated trauma inflicted on the infant. They also argue that removal of the sensitive foreskin results in decreased sexual pleasure when the infant reaches adulthood.
So, what did we do? Our boys are circumcised because:
1) My husband is Jewish
2) I wanted my kids to look like my husband
3) I heard it was more healthy
This wasn’t such a hot-button issue when my boys were born, I must say!
Did you circumcise your baby? Why or why not? Share your experience in the comments.
You might also like:
Although we don’t have boys (yet), my husband and I have discussed the topic and came to an agreement. We will circumcise our boys mainly because my husband is! It’s also more sanitary and easier to clean. Hopefully we’ll have a boy someday!! (:
Won’t your sons be lucky your husband hasn’t lost an arm or an eye! If your husband wants his sons to look like him, he should consider restoring his foreskin. At least one man has done that for this reason.
Keeping intact parts clean is easy and quick – in fact most problems are caused by meddling: premature forcible retraction, and strong soaps. Most of the men in the world are not circumcised and we never have any problems. On the contrary, the foreskin itself confers pleasure.
You said it!! Much healthier and I wanted my boys to look like my husband
I have to say I had already decided to circumcise my boys before I ever even had children. My experience in the Operating Room for 20 years cemented that decision! I had seen way too many elderly gentlemen having to come to the OR for Circs because of repeat infections. Maybe from poor care at a Nursing Home, or the patient had just lost his ability to care for his self and it was overlooked, exc… Also anesthesia for elderly patients holds its own risks!
Jane W — very interesting perspective – thanks you!
Routine infant circumcision (RIC) is the most controversial topic in all of American pediatric medicine. Currently, about 55% of American baby boys are done shortly after birth in the maternity ward. An unknown number of boys are done later as outpatients in doctor’s offices. The number of Jewish ritual circumcisions is too small to bother with.
Intactivists believe that RIC is an unethical medical practice. I emphasise the following two reasons for this conclusion:
1. Most RICs are still performed without anesthesia or with ineffective anesthesia. The intense pain of unanesthetized circumcision is well documented. Last century in the USA and Canada, about 100 million baby boys were circumcised without any anesthesia whatsoever. This was utterly barbaric, especially after lidocaine (the stuff dentists use when doing root canals) was first marketed in 1950.
2. Circumcision is a material alteration of the most sexual part of the male body. What circumcision ablates is directly involved in masturbation, foreplay, and penetrative sex. Therefore we are required to look for the possible consequences of RIC for adult sexual pleasure and functionality. Even though middle class urban families began to practice RIC in the late 19th century, there has never been a thorough large sample study of the sexual consequences of RIC. Hence doctors who circumcise cannot fulfill their duty to “first do no harm.” There is ample anecdotal evidence that RIC can have adverse sexual consequences, for one of both of an adult man and his spouse. These consequences (which include premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, vaginismus, and failure to enjoy sexual activity) usually manifest themselves very gradually in middle age, so that RIC is seldom on the list of suspects.
In the first half of the 20th century, RIC became a common practice among the urban middle class in all English speaking countries except Ireland. Japan and continental Europe never adopted it. Socialized medicine in the UK and New Zealand stopped paying for RIC in 1950 and 1969, respectively, and so the practice died out in those countries. In the late 20th century, Canadian provinces gradually ceased to reimburse RIC, and the overall rate is now about 10-20%. The same is true in Australia. There is no evidence in any of these countries that the natural penis is prone to medical problems.
In the USA, the maternity ward RIC rate was about 90% in the 1970s and is 55% now. HHS does not count circumcisions done in doctors’ offices to outpatients. About 25% of American births are covered by Medicaid. In 18 states, Medicaid does not reimburse RIC. The proportion of American births to mothers who are Latina or who descend from post WWII immigrants from noncircumcising cultures, has risen. Finally, RIC is out of fashion west of the Rockies, where Medicaid does not cover the cost. The extent to which private health insurance reimburses RIC is not known.
In 2012, the AAP essentially said that the decision is up to the parents, and that if parents opt to circumcise, Medicaid or private insurance should cover the cost. But how many parents have the urological, epidemiological and sexual knowledge to make an irreversible decision about their son’s penis should look and function? They don’t have that knowledge, and that’s why they look to the medical profession for guidance. But the AAP is, in essence, declining to supply that guidance. The AAP’s 2012 report failed to lead, scientifically and ethically. That report’s recommendation amounts to an attempt to be all things to all parents, and is out of step with medical opinion in all other advanced nations.
Most parents will base their decision on perceived cosmetic conformity, and on sexual urban myths. All too often, American boys are circumcised because the parents silently believe that a boy having a foreskin will be humiliated in middle and high school, and will face rejection when he starts his sexual life. Men with PhDs have told me, with straight faces, that intact men cannot experience oral sex! When the body and attitudes clash, don’t alter the body; reexamine the attitudes.
Circumcision is not healthier if boys and men bathe daily, and abstain from grossly irresponsible sexual acts. The way forward is to add condoms, not subtract foreskins.
Here’s my take on why American RIC has become so controversial. Circumcision is grounded in an inadequate understanding of sexual acts and sexual pleasure. I came to appreciate this in two ways. First, circumcision removes or destroys the most sexually sensitive parts of the male body. The nervous system in the foreskin and frenulum are entirely consistent with those parts being highly erogenous. The AAP overlooked this fact, one that the typical American doctor does not know. There are many American and Canadian studies claiming that circumcision does not affect sexual sensitivity. Those studies all assume that male sexual pleasure derives solely from the glans rubbing against the vaginal wall. This is a major untruth; for intact men, the main source of sexual pleasure are the inner foreskin, the ridged band, the frenulum, and the frenular delta, anatomical structures all ablated by circumcision.
Second, a number of people have testified that the natural penis is sexually superior. These people include women who’ve been in committed relationships with both kinds of men, gay men, and adult men who have regenerated a foreskin of sorts by 1-2 years of gentle tension applied to the remaining penis skin. Most people know of these testimonials only thanks to the internet and its anonymity. Hence RIC became truly controversial only after home broadband became the norm. The main place where RIC is debated nowadays is, surprise surprise, Facebook!
If you have not converted to Judaism, and if your family has not joined a temple, there is no religious reason to circumcise. RIC cannot make your boys Jewish.
In the first half of last century, millions of boys grew up the circumcised sons of intact fathers. There is zero evidence that this led to awkward moments in family life. Likewise, nowadays the typical intact American boy has a circumcised father. I have never heard of that being a psychological problem. Here in New Zealand, granddad is usually circumcised, Dad may or may not be, boys never are, and nobody talks about this, much less stresses over it. My dad was circed and I am not. This fact, evident in the swimming pool and beach changing room every summer, never came up in conversation. A number of English speaking adult men have revealed on the internet that they became angry and sad when they learned that some of the sexual equipment they were born with had been surgically removed in an operation that most men in the First World do not experience.
We intactivists are not against circumcision freely chosen by an informed adult, for reasons religious, medical or sexual. We are against circumcision imposed on a child by his parents, and performed by a medical profession that is insufficiently informed and reflective, and that fails to employ adequate pain management.
I am really honored that you took the time to write this thoughtful and well-researched comment. Question for you: would you be comfortable with this comment being posted on our site in order to continue this important discussion? We could (or could not) use your name I suppose — please advise, and thank you so much for coming to CloudMom! Melissa
No way would i get it done for my boys. Jew or not i dont believe its right. They can have it done later in adulthood if there forskin is a problem. It is such an american thing to do .
We chose not to circumcise our son. Foreskin is natural; you’re born with it! If my son chooses, he can have it removed. He could never choose to have it back. I’m happy with our decision; I hope my son will be, too.
My husband is uncircumcised. He wonders what it would be like to be “cut”, but I’m glad he isn’t. He’s NEVER had an infection down there. Never had any problems down there. If you properly care for a natural penis, you won’t have problems. I actually left the decision to cut up to my husband. We’re expecting our first son in April. As a male, my hubby can far better understand this issue than I can. He lives it. I just watch from outside.
I had my 1st son circumcised w/o much thought put into it. The nurse just told me all the pros & non of the cons- so we did it. Then when I was in nursing school, I saw circumcisions, like you said, it was horrendous! So, since then, I have done much soul & internet searching. I have talked w guys from INTACT & NOCIRC. There is no way, I could do that to another son, now that I was fully informed of both sides. I did have 2 more sons. We left tyhem intact. When they wee old enough to ask why they looked different from their big brother, I told them as simply & straightforward as I could. they both said they were glad to be left intact. I did offer to let them be circumcised once they were old enough to make that decision for themselves. They both decided they rather liked the way they were. My oldest however, now has 2 boys of his own, who ARE circumcised, go figure? I guess you just get used to whatever way you are.
BTW, I get your reasons #’s 1 & 3, but don’t understand #2. If your baby has a different eye color, do yyou run out & get him colored contacts? Would you dye or curl/straighten his hair? These are the traits everyone sees, not his penis! Can you please explain this one to me? It is very simple to explain to a boy why his penis looks different from dads. I assume his penis doesn’t have hair around it like dads either, so even with the surgery, its still not going to look like dads.
marlene, I like your comment about how it doesn’t totally matter if little boys look like their dad — that really gave me something to think about! I am happy to see you back commenting on the site! how have you been? Melissa
Melissa, 1. if you are not Jewish, neither is your son. Hospital circumcision on any but the 8th day, by anyone but an observant Jew with due ceremony is of no significance in Judaism. 2. When a boy looks at his father, what he’ll notice is the hair and the size. When he learns why they’re different, a common reaction is “Poor daddy!” 3. The intact men of Europe (including all those husky Scandinavians, and most of their stars of music, film, TV and sports) enjoy better health, if anything, than the average circumcised American man.
The 2012 AAP policy is very little different from before. The evidence is still not enough to recommend it, and they don’t actually weigh up the benefits and risks (let alone certain harms). They admit they have no statistics for major complications and death, so they just ignore them. The reduction in the ailments you mention, by their own figures, mean hundreds or thousands of circumcisions are wasted to prevent one case.
Hi Hugh7 — actually we are raising our kids Catholic however since this seemed to be the tradition in Judaism, that formed part of our decision. However, I have to confess that I don’t think as a family we properly did our homework on this issue. I have been amazed by the comments from you and some other folks… to be honest, we didn’t think about it all that much… it was just sort of what most people did and looking back, I think we should have spent more time on the whole thing. I really appreciate your commenting on the post and your insights!!!! Melissa
We did not circumcise our son. My husband is from England and it’s practically unheard of there – and shocker, Englishmen don’t have UTI/penile cancer/foreskin epidemics! I really don’t believe or agree with the health “benefits”… I think it’s unnecessary for infants. If a need arises later on, so be it. But it’s also super easy to care for an intact penis too.
Do what you want with my comment, just keep it anonymous.
I came of age in the American midwest, surrounded by circumcised boys and men. I was the only intact male in my family of origin. I have been married 24 years and am the father of daughters. I am neither a doctor nor a sexologist, although I nearly chose medicine as my profession. I have been agitating against RIC since reading Edward Wallerstein’s 1980 book in 1983. I attend church.
I do not believe that infant circumcision should be outlawed. If it is outlawed, there should be a religious exception. That said, I am all for the dissemination of the following sexual facts. In the USA, the vast majority of educated Caucasian adult males are circumcised. The vast majority of Caucasian women have never been intimate with an intact male. Hence most Americans are clueless about how the natural male body is more sexually satisfying for both genders. I discovered this fact by following social media and by talking to my better half, whose lifetime sexual experiences have been far more varied than my own.
When the typical young American woman comes to accept that infant circumcision can damage adult sexual enjoyment, American routine infant circumcision dies there and then. Circumcision is NOT sex positive.