On Aug. 12, columnists Steve and Lynelle addressed a parent’s concern about circumcision. They advised the parent to have the child circumcised. Readers responded and the columnists wanted to share those comments, followed by their own.
Dear Steve and Lynelle,
Please inform your readers about the horrors of routine infant circumcision.
It is illegal to circumcise a girl in the United States. Why is the genital integrity of little boys routinely violated?
Mother to two intact boys
***
I totally disagree with the advice you gave the mother about circumcision. The AMA and AAP both state clearly there are no compelling reasons to circumcise infants. The father is right. Growing up intact is becoming the norm now so there will be a lot less so-called locker room issues. Medically speaking there is no evidence to support the need for routine circumcision.
Tom
****
Presently 44 percent of U.S.A. male babies are not circumcised. Unfortunately, about half of our doctors are misinformed.
Non-therapeutic circumcision is not recommended by any national or international medical association. It has no medical basis, so it is cosmetic surgery.
Circumcision cuts off the foreskin (prepuce), which consists of loose moveable skin and mucosa similar to the lips of the mouth, rich in sensory nerve endings and specialized immune cells, which help provide protection from STDs, including HIV. The foreskin is significantly more sensitive than the rest of the penis. HIV prevalence in the USA is 3 to 7.6 times that in many European countries, where circumcision is rare.
Circumcision is painful and subjects a baby to risks of hemorrhage, antibiotic-resistant infections, adhesions and skin bridges, acquired phimosis, urinary retention, and even death. Some complications, such as painful erections, tearing at the scar site, or hair on the penile shaft are not apparent until puberty.
James Moore, director
National Organization of Circumcision Information
***
I would like to give you some more information, as much of the general public is still unaware of the value of circumcision.
Many virulent bacteria, including the cancer-producing Smegma bacillus, can grow profusely, and, without going into detail here , can contribute to cervical cancer.
The tendency to hemorrhage during circumcision is due to the fact that the important blood clotting element, Vitamin K, is not formed in the normal amount until the fifth to the seventh day of life. A second element which is also necessary for the clotting of blood is prothrombin. Prothrombin skyrockets on the eighth day to a level even better than normal, 110 percent.
From the Vitamin K and Prothrombin determinations, the perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighth day of life.
Over 4,000 years ago, when God initiated circumcision with Abraham, God said “And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised.”
Judi
****
Your research wasn’t that great; if it had been, you would have discovered that circumcision is on the wane in the U.S., especially in the western part.
I find the very idea of cutting off an infant’s foreskin to be very distressing.
Carolyn
****
I am a little concerned about your recent column. There are three issues you have not addressed. First, the foreskin is useful. Second, there are significant risks to the circumcision procedure. Third, the circumcision rate is 55 percent in the USA and falling every year. Finally, the USA is virtually the only country that still does non-religious circumcision. I have met many parents who deeply regret their decision to circumcise their newborn sons. This regret does not heal with time.
Claire
***
Some men are undergoing non-surgical foreskin restoration today to try to restore some of what was sexually lost to them by circumcision. These men would much rather have had their bodily integrity rights respected as infants. How much better it would have been for them today if their parents had left them intact.
Please, take the whole baby home.
Petrina
****
Steve: Reading over these comments, I found myself in the grip of — gasp — true believers, those people who close their minds to push an agenda. The above examples of the responses we received are only a sampling. They poured in from all over the country, most of them in full attack mode of how we could possibly support such a dastardly procedure as circumcision.
Here is my completely unscientific opinion on the foreskin: It’s an evolutionary anomaly. Back when the cavemen ran around naked, they needed some protection. With the invention of trousers, that protection is not needed.
The foreskin is a natural haven for bacteria and viruses so with STDs a major health problem, it would make sense to get rid of a host to diseases.
There is no medical or sexual reason to keep the foreskin. Those who argue about intactness and taking the whole baby home are under the delusion that their precious bundles are perfect. Parents like this raise their children to believe in their preciousness when, quite likely, the kids will turn into moral derelicts who put themselves first. But they’ll still have their foreskin.
It was amazing to read the number of comments confusing circumcision with female genital mutilation. In the latter, the clitoris is removed to prevent pleasure. A similar procedure in males would be to remove the glans. One writer said that all of the sensitive nerve endings are in the foreskin, which is total nonsense. Some idiots actually went so far as to say circumcision is a human rights issue. Like I said, true believers.
James Moore, who is quoted above, calls circumcision cosmetic surgery. That probably has something to do with it. As does religion. But one thing is certain: After thousands of years of circumcision, the foreskin is not necessary. Those who claim it is are operating under a purity delusion that is patently false. They ain’t none of us perfect.
When our column came out, it threw the true believer response team into a frenzy to get their word out lest someone might disagree with them.
Ultimately, circumcision is going to be a private decision for the parents. They’ll base it on health matters and religion. If any of you are leaning toward circumcision, don’t let the true believers influence you. This is not a life-and-death situation, it’s not a human rights violation, and the boy will be fine after the procedure. He’ll be better off for it.
Lynelle: First, I would like to thank the die-hard fans of foreskin for keeping me up on the circumcision lingo. My favorite new word is “intactivists,” or those who are adamant about leaving boys intact.
This column has been an interesting one for me. Being someone who really likes research, I dove in. I have read more about the penis than I really care to, but I do feel better informed. Admittedly, I didn’t take as much time to research than I probably should have for the last column, but that doesn’t mean I’m not sticking to my advice. So, to all the intactivists out there, bring on the hate mail. You won’t like this week’s answer either.
As I just said, I stand by my advice to this mother. Although I left this out of the last column, this issue happens to be one of religion for me. I have no children, but when I do and if I have sons, they will be circumcised.
Also, to those of you naysayers who say aesthetics don’t come into play at all, I’ve been asking around, and I believe you’re wrong. I did not conduct an official poll, but bravely asking strangers about their penises, I found that both sides believed the aesthetic portion of this came into play. In fact, every uncircumcised male I spoke with (approximately 10 ranging in age from 19 to 46, and by the way, these men were hard to find) said they have at one time been embarrassed by this or had an unpleasant sexual experience because they or their female partner was uncomfortable with it. I’m not saying that’s the norm, or is right or wrong, but it’s something to consider. It may not be THE issue, but it is a factor.
I’m not a doctor, I’m not a man and I don’t have sons, so I admittedly am not the best one to weigh in on this issue. Anytime anyone is considering or has questions about a medical procedure, they should speak to a trained professional — which is what I advised the mother to do. I do have to say, like Steve, I believe the comments we received tended to come from true believers.
We all have that thing we’re passionate about — mine is NOT this — so I applaud all the intactivists for sticking up for what you believe in. There is always another side to everything, though. That’s what’s great about his country. You can slam a couple of advice columnists for what they believe, and we get to rain on your parade. This has been fun, but I’m so over talking about the penis. Let’s talk about a real topic, such as who the next leader of our country should be. Anyone? (Oh! I wonder if they are circumcised?)
Steve and Lynelle want to give you advice! They are always looking for good questions to answer, so pass on your drama, dating disasters, relationship woes and any problems that come your way. Write to them at steveandlynelle@heraldbulletin.com or send a letter to them at 1133 Jackson St., Anderson, IN 46016. Too frustrated to write? Call (765) 640-4863. Advice columnists Steve Dick and Lynelle Miller bring unique perspectives to your problems each Tuesday.
