TO CIRCUMCISE OR NOT TO CIRCUMCISE? PT. 2
Snip
About a year ago, I went out on a limb and decided to vigorously oppose doctors with knives, well, going out on a limb.
Especially when attempting to persuade expecting parents, I defended my stance as follows:
Male circumcision isn't medically necessary, much less recommended. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that the medical benefits of circumcision "aren't compelling enough to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision." While circumcision may have a few potential minor medical benefits, they're outweighed by significant complication rates of infection, hemorrhage, and the possibility of even death.
The history of circumcision in America speaks for itself. Non-religious infant circumcision didn't become routine in the US until late 19th century. The procedure became popular only because it was thought to control masturbation, which everyone considered to be a sinful act that engendered illnesses ranging from blindness to epilepsy to death. By restricting movement of the penile shaft, circumcision was thought to reduce the propensity for males to shake hands with their governor. (Source: CIRP.)
A flip side of this argument is that circumcised men experience a loss of sexual sensation. (Of course, a loss of stimulation sounds like it could be a potential benefit, but I won't comment any further.)
Another oft-cited reason for male circumcision relates to cleanliness, which most experts today dismiss as a concern. The alleged dirtiness of uncircumcised penises was announced during an era when we didn't have all the modern cleaning tools that most families now have at their disposal: Biore Foreskin Wash, Smegma Oil of Olay, or something like that.
So the only reasonably persuasive factor is aesthetics. Americans often argue that since most men in the US are circumcised, those uncircumcised might feel embarrassed because their johnsons have a longer raincoat. But why conform if everyone else's appendage looks like a cross between Darth Vader and Dick Cheney?
From a global perspective, uncircumcised penises are the norm as the overwhelming majority of babies are not circumcised. Indeed, 82% of the world’s living men are intact.
In fact, according to this doctor, the United States is now the only country in the world routinely circumcising babies for non-religious reasons. Yes, we are the only member of the United Nations that routinely snips our members.
You can read more about these facts from the book soon to be on every nightstand: The Joy of Uncircumcising.
Besides, it seems silly to talk about aesthetics when debating genital mutilation. I find big toes to be aesthetically displeasing, but I don't advocate whacking them off with a machete.
In sum, the US is the only country that routinely performs medically-unnecessary non-religious male genital mutilation, which was only popularized as a way of controlling the epidemic problem of masturbation.
As much as I consider myself an American patriot, I'm going to have side with the rest of the world on this one.
It doesn't make sense to circumcise.
Well, now I might have to eat my words.
Dan Marcus, PopLicks' Bureau Chief for Foreskin Affairs, reports of a new study that concludes that male circumcision reduces the risk that men will contract the HIV virus through intercourse with HIV-positive women by 70%.
So for those who agreed with me before: doesn't this study, if true, present a good argument in favor of circumcising our sons (or ourselves)?
<< Home