Whole Living
More than a Snip
Re-examining Infant Circumcision
Being from England, I reached adulthood without even knowing that there was such a thing as the routine circumcision of newborn boys. In Europe it is rare, and it is estimated that between 80 and 95 percent of men worldwide are uncircumcised. But when I married an American and gave birth to a boy in the Hudson Valley, I learned that most boys are circumcised as a matter of course in the US. I informed my husband that I was against it for our child and he agreed. A few decades ago this would have been a radical choice: 85 percent of American boys in the 1980s were routinely circumcised. But that has fallen to an average of 55 percent nationwide, with just 23 percent in the western states. This decrease is partly a result of immigration from countries where it is not practiced but may also be due to factors such as a gradual change in our perception of the custom and a greater awareness of medical facts.
Ninety percent of circumcisions in the US are done electively for nonreligious reasons, and it is these nonreligious ones that this article largely addresses. Still, it is worth noting that this ancient practice is often entwined with culture, ritual, and emotion. For Jews and Muslims, it represents a covenant with God. Traditionally, these faiths interpret the Bible to require boys to be circumcised, whether as infants, or later as a rite of passage.
J.P. of New Paltz (who asked that we use only his initials) is of Jewish heritage, yet he decided that he would “never allow” his son to be circumcised either for religious or medical reasons. “For me it was a no-brainer” he says. “I encountered a lot of protest from my family and in-laws. But to me, circumcision is a hold-over from less enlightened times.”
Have something to say?
Login or register to leave a comment.
Jennifer Coias left this comment 7 months ago
BRAVO!!!!
Ron Low left this comment 7 months ago
Wow, what a great article!
I know foreskin feels REALLY good, but I never thought about it before reading it here, how simply being held closely by your loving mother could HURT if you're a boy who's been circumcised. How SAD!
Thanks, Angela Starks. HIS body HIS decision.
David Llewellyn left this comment 7 months ago
What an excellent article. On the issue of cervical cancer, it should be noted that Israeli scientists five years ago offered significant evidence that it is genetic predisposition that is important and that lack of circumcision in the male partner seems to have little, if anything, to do with the development of cervical cancer in the female partner. See http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/menczer1/.
John James McGlew left this comment 7 months ago
This is an excellent article.
I have been dismayed by the coverage of this topic, particularly the pre internet coverage. I don't understand how this practice on baby boys continues in our area. I really think that most parents do not know that the most sensitive part of the genitals is removed and this involves 20000 touch sensitive nerve endings being cut. In the natural state this part of the body feels so good to the owner. I guess one problem is that many parents are not the owner of these particular nerve endings. Maybe if they become aware, more boys/men will have the chance to experience all the pleasures or their natural bodies. It feels so good to have this. Let this surgery be only a choice for the owner. His body his choice.
Frank Ohara left this comment 7 months ago
Congratulations Ms. Starks on a well researched and written article. It is one of the best I have seen if not the best.
I usually approach articles such as this armed to correct factual mistakes and mis-information but I will leave yours unharmed. I will only clarify one point.
The immigrant effect on the circumcision rate is most often misrepresented. You have not done this but have also not quantified it. The Centers for Disease Control/National Centers for Health Statistics survey the circumcision rates every two years with the last reporting a 56% circumcision rate in The US. This statistic has been compiled many years. When it was first started, the immigrant portion of the population was an insignificant influence and thus, the stated rates have always been inclusive of whites and African Americans only. For continuity, this convention is still followed and the current rates do not include recent immigrants. If this factor were included into the statistics, it would represent a further 4% reduction in the circumcision rate or approximately 52%. Indeed, these recent immigrants are adopting the practice at alarming rates. For instance, circumcision is up 300% for Latinos and 800% for immigrants from India.
.
This is a sharp decline from the early 1990's when the circumcision rate was at or above 90%.
Tom Tobin left this comment 7 months ago
This is the most sane, balanced article I have ever read regarding circumcision. The last sentence says it all.