|
Circumcision
"My own preference, if I had the good fortune to
have another son would be to leave his little penis
alone." -Dr. Benjamin Spock, 1989
Circumcision is a touchy issue for many
families. There are often strong feeling both for
and against it. I have been researching the subject
on the internet the past few days to find out where
I stand on the matter. Here is some of what I have
found: Originally, circumcision of males was
done to discourage masturbation. It is somewhat
effective. Foreskin functions as a sheath that
makes masturbation considerably more comfortable.
Masturbation without foreskin generally requires
applied lubrication. Since sex experts generally
agree that masturbation is both healthy and normal,
I wonder what value there is in making it more
difficult.
Foreskin also works as a kind of linear bearing
in sexual intercourse. This contribution may be
"sorely" missed when vaginal secretions decrease
after menopause. Dr. Thomas Ritter states,
"Circumcised males sometimes need an additional
lubricant (e.g. KY jelly) for non-irritating
intercourse. The sheath within a sheath of the
normal penis obviates such a need." Usually
problems of dry or painful intercourse are
attributed to the female, rather than the doctor
who circumcised the male.
Intact foreskin represents about one third of
the highly enervated penile skin. Circumcision
removes this richly erogenous tissue. As a
circumcised man, I can only wonder what it would be
like to have one third more nerve endings on my
penis. Foreskin also protects the head of the penis
from abrasive contact with clothing. Over the years
the skin on the head of a circumcised male thickens
from lack of protection, reducing
sensitivity.
Current reasons given for circumcision include
hygienic factors, social conformity, and religious
tradition. Let's take a look at each.
When routine circumcision began to be
questioned, the doctors who performed it (at $135
to $300 per snip) needed to come up with a
rationale. They found that uncircumcised boys have
a higher rate of urinary tract infections, and are
susceptible to cancer of the penis (a rare form of
cancer striking one of every 1,333 men that usually
begins in the foreskin). The reason foreskin
presents a greater disease risk is that some
uncircumcised males, particularly in developing
countries with poorer hygienic standards, do not
properly wash themselves. Bacteria can grow under
the foreskin and infect the urinary tract, or human
papillomavirus can fester and become carcinogenic.
Properly washing the penis can obviate these
hazards. The rate of penile cancer in Japan (with
it's superior hygiene), for instance, is
significantly lower than in the US., despite the
fact that a large majority of Japanese men are
uncircumcised. Does it make more sense to cut the
foreskin off, or learn to keep it clean?
Many parents give a nod to circumcision because
they want their boy to look like other boys or to
look like dad. Circumcision rates in the US.,
however, have dropped to 60%, and in California the
rate has fallen below 50%. Uncircumcised boys no
longer stand out. No family need feel ashamed that
their son's penis looks the way penises naturally
look. The most obvious difference between a
father's and son's genitals is the presence of
pubic hair. Would fathers who want their son's
genitals to look like their own consider shaving
their pubic hair? Besides, who is
looking?
Other families choose circumcision to follow
religious tradition, such as Judaism. Traditions
can be very important and meaningful ways for
people to bond and share a common identity.
Traditions can also carry with them the vestiges of
past oppressions. Some Jewish families have begun
replacing the brit millah ritual circumcision with
"brit shalom", a bloodless baby naming ceremony.
This attempt to preserve the spirit of a tradition
while filtering out the actual cutting of flesh is
still likely to be upsetting to those with strong
feelings about their traditions.
Let us consider, though, how upsetting
circumcision must be to the newborn. Physiological
studies confirm that babies feel intense pain
during circumcision. Anesthesia is not recommended
because it carries too great a risk in newborns.
Doctors admit that Tylenol does not block the pain.
No one knows what it is really like at that age,
but some psychologists theorize that circumcision
runs counter to a newborn's developmental need to
trust in the safety of the world they have arrived
in. Others argue that the choice of circumcision
should wait until the child is old enough to choose
for himself. Do we circumcise newborns because we
know that if we waited few would choose it
voluntarily? Newborns cannot organize as a group
and demand an end to circumcision. But if they
could speak, what do you think they would say?
MORE
© 2009 Tim
Hartnett
Other Father Issues,
Books
* * *
Parents are the bones on which children sharpen
their teeth. - Peter Ustinov
Tim
Hartnett, MFT is father to Molly at their home in
Santa Cruz, CA. Tim also works part time as a
writer, psychotherapist and men's group leader. If
you have any feedback, or would like to receive the
monthly column, "Daddyman Speaks" by Tim Hartnett
regularly via email, (free and confidential) send
your name and email address to E-Mail
Tim Hartnett, 911 Center St. Suite "C", Santa Cruz,
CA 95060, 831.464.2922 voice & fax.
Contact
Us |
Disclaimer
| Privacy
Statement
Menstuff®
Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
Clay
©1996-2023, Gordon Clay
|
