(I wrote the following as a comment on a forum, in 2012. I recently found it again, and decided to share it as an article.)
It is my understanding that circumcision is big business in the USA. I suspect that’s one of the reasons it is still so strongly advocated by many doctors there, although as exact numbers and transparent reporting on the matter are hard to come by, it’s hard to say for sure. The commercial aspect of it likely plays a significant part in the prevalence of male circumcision in the US, along with misguided medical beliefs, religious belief, and general public ignorance after many years of misinformation, miseducation, and misunderstanding on the matter.
In this article we’ll get into some of the information I have dug up when investigating this topic in 2012, in order to help inform a client who was considering circumcising her soon to be born male child.
Puritanical Religious Extremism?
It is also my understanding that, other than in the Jewish and Muslim communities, the concept of male circumcision was widely popularized in the USA as a result of the rather prudish religious mindset of John Harvey Kellogg (the namesake of Kellogg’s Cornflakes, etc.). In the late 1800s (around 1888), he proposed that male babies be circumcised as a way to stop males from masturbating, which many at that time believed was a dirty and evil act. Of course, it has since been proven that circumcision has no impact on a man’s inclination to masturbate or not. Later came ideas that it was “cleaner” from a hygienic perspective (as opposed to the religious/moral perspective). All of that has proven untrue. Kellogg may have gotten this misguided idea from Edward Dixon who, in 1845, declared that circumcision “cures” masturbation (as if it were some kind of disease!).
Wild Claims of Foreskin Induced Disease
Between 1845 and 1888, and onwards, a mind-boggling and (what today looks like) ridiculous list of diseases were claimed to be caused by the foreskin and/or prevented by its removal! Diseases such as syphilis, cross-eyes, numerous other eye problems in general, wet dreams, venereal disease, spine curvature, cancer of the tongue, prostate cancer, cervical cancer in women (that male circumcision would prevent it due to reduced incidence of HPV infection via intercourse), club foot, bed wetting, blindness, penile cancer, tuberculosis, dumbness, deafness, epilepsy, bladder paralysis, spinal paralysis… the list goes on.
In 1953, D. Snyder and C. Miller demanded that all boys must be circumcised immediately at birth to prevent masturbation and to “provide immunity to nearly all physical and mental diseases.” It all seems rather ludicrous to read about today, but this was the way some people thought then, and also now.
The Real Motive: Health Benefits or Penis Desensitisation?
I can only assume Kellogg was privy to all the aforementioned misguided “medical” thinking. Most of the push for routine circumcision in the USA appears to have stemmed from ideas that circumcision was an effective means to desensitize the penis (which the advocates believed to be a good idea), and that the foreskin was the cause of innumerable diseases. Personally, I think all the health-related views proposed were for the most part put forth to cover up the underlying advocacy of penis/sexual desensitization (meaning, in my opinion, that genital/sexual desensitization has likely always been the primary motivation for routine neonatal male circumcision). The push for male circumcision in America (and elsewhere), as far as I can tell, came from puritanical zealots bent on imposing their distorted moral outlook on society (sadly, an act not uncommon in the followers of many religions still to this day).
It was in 1893 that Mark Lehman declared that all American boys must be circumcised en masse, for immediate implementation. The following year, it was even declared that “circumcising blacks prevents them from raping white women.” Needless to say, it should now be very apparent that the original rationale behind male circumcision is, in today’s world, irrational and (mostly) unscientific. As others have pointed out, there is no medical or even moralistically valid reason to circumcise a male child. Of course, there are those in the medical field who would adamantly disagree with my assertion, as detailed in this article titled, Declining Rates of U.S. Infant Male Circumcision Could Add Billions to Health Care Costs, Experts Warn.
Perhaps the most ironic advocacy of circumcision came from a Mr. R.W. Cockshut (his name is an interesting twist of fate) who in the British Medical Journal, 19 October 1930, demanded all boys be circumcised to promote chastity (on the basis that circumcision would desirably desensitize the penis).
I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is “against nature”, but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that ‘God knows best how to make little boys.’
– R. W. Cockshut (BMJ) [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2461310/
Here are two quotes from a book by Kellogg (Plain Facts for Old and Young: Embracing the Natural History and Hygiene of Organic Life, 1877), in reference to circumcision preventing masturbation:
“Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice [of masturbation], and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in his vice.”
From page 297:
“In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement, and preventing the recurrence of the practice [of masturbation] in those whose will-power has become so weakened that the patient is unable to exercise entire self-control.”
Here is a quote from a research paper titled ‘The Culture Of Circumcision In U.S. Foreign And Domestic Policy‘:
History provides still further insight into the cultural forces behind circumcision. Although male circumcision has been practiced in certain regions of the world for at least several thousand years, it was not practiced widely in the United States until the late 1870s. Springing out of the era’s prevalent Victorian culture, circumcision was introduced at first as a cure for masturbation. It was, unfortunately, soon viewed as such an effective ‘cure’ that by the early 1900s doctors also began to appreciate the potential of circumcision as preventive measure, so much so that by 1928 the editor of the medical field’s leading journal advocated routine male infant circumcision to prevent later masturbation. [2]https://www.public.asu.edu/~ellswork/circumcision.pdf
Comparisons to Female Circumcision / Female Genital Mutilation
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a highly contentious topic, and not something this article will get into in detail. There are those anti male circumcision
Circumcision, A Harmless Procedure?
Frederick Leboyer has delivered more than 10,000 babies. In Birth Without Violence he writes “People say – and believe – that a newborn baby feels nothing. He feels everything. Everything – utterly, without choice or filter or discrimination.” Dr. Leboyer found that babies born with minimal trauma developed into happier and emotionally healthier children. Other studies have shown that babies who are touched develop more quickly and gain more weight.
The new evidence supports the conclusion that the infant’s experience in the womb, birth itself, circumcision, and contact after birth have a significant impact on future well-being and functioning. [3]Circumcision: New Information Raises Questions
There exists a significant lack of understanding regarding the structure of the foreskin. Information about this aspect of male anatomy has been scarce for both the general public and medical practitioners. The misconception that the foreskin is a vestigial tissue with no significant function, akin to hair, is erroneous. In reality, the foreskin harbors erogenous tissue densely populated with sensitive nerves, playing a crucial role in sexual arousal and intercourse. During erection, it naturally retracts to envelop the upper shaft of the penis, a strategic positioning that facilitates contact with the vaginal wall during intercourse. Furthermore, the foreskin acts as a protective barrier, guarding the penis against irritation. It typically remains non-retractable until around two to three years after birth, serving as a developmental milestone in male anatomy.
Those who have been present for circumcisions sometimes report minimal or no crying from the infant. There are a few potential reasons for this muted reaction. Performing circumcisions is deeply rooted in some cultures, so questioning or acknowledging any harm can be quite difficult. It’s easier for someone invested in the practice to deny that it’s painful rather than confront that dissonance.
As the author Rosemary Romberg states in her book ‘Circumcision – The Painful Dilemma,’ “The baby born to conventional birthing procedures is in a state of trauma anyway – whether he is circumcised or not!” The stress from common birth interventions may already place the baby in a withdrawn state (a state of bodily dissociation). So the lack of crying during circumcision may stem from the infant being overwhelmed to the point of shock. Just as adults sometimes faint when overwhelmed, the traumatic stress of circumcision may cause the baby to withdraw or semi-consciously check out. So vocalization alone isn’t always a clear sign that pain isn’t occurring.
In the November 19, 1987 issue of New England Journal of Medicine, Anand and Hickey, in a comprehensive review of recent medical literature on newborn pain, conclude that newborn responses to pain are “similar to but greater than those in adult subjects.” Concerning the memory of pain in neonates they write, “The persistence of specific behavioral changes after circumcision in neonates implies the presence of memory. In the short term, these behavioral changes may disrupt the adaptation of newborn infants to their postnatal environment, the development of parent-infant bonding, and feeding schedules. In the long term, painful experiences in neonates could possibly lead to psychological sequelae, since several workers have shown that newborns may have a much greater capacity for memory than was previously thought.” [4]Circumcision: New Information Raises Questions
For those who still believe it’s harmless for a baby to be circumcised, please keep in mind that most circumcisions since the late 1800s have been done without anesthesia of any kind, and this practice still continues today. In the cases where anesthesia is used, scientific opinion is that it does little, if anything, to reduce (let alone eliminate) the pain. If you are a man or woman, ask yourself if you’d willingly undergo having a significant proportion of your vagina or penis cut off today, and without anesthesia.
Current Views on Health Impacts of the Foreskin
Many studies and medical experts actually suggest that the uncircumcised penis is more hygienic (so long as normal bodily hygiene is practiced), and that smegma (the white, cheesy-like substance that naturally accumulates under the foreskin) has anti-microbial (anti-bacterial and anti-viral) properties.
On the topic of disproved health benefits of male circumcision, I quote the following from this article:
… some people believe it has health benefits. In the past routine hospital circumcision has been promoted as a preventive cure for masturbation, mental illness, venereal disease, cancer, and uncleanliness. Recent studies have disproved all of these claims. Edward Wallerstein’s book Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy addresses this issue in convincing detail. The incidence of health problems related to the foreskin is so low that removing it as a preventive cure would be tantamount to performing routine appendectomies to prevent appendicitis. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetrics have concluded “there are no valid medical indications for circumcisions in the neonatal period.” [5]Circumcision: New Information Raises Questions
Jewish Circumcision, an important rite-of-passage?
When I first posted an early version of this article online (in 2012), a Jewish man, who knew me via his partner, was deeply offended. He argued that in the Jewish tradition (to which his parents adhered), circumcision was a rite-of-passage. I was curious about this, as it was unclear to me who one can legitimately go through a rite-of-passage without a basic level of conscious participation? Here’s some of what I shared around that:
I think what has most stood out for me in your sharing is this notion of a rite-of-passage. My own understanding of ancient/traditional rites-of-passage is that they marked a time of great transition in life. I have not yet come across any historical commentary that suggests circumcision (male or female) was traditionally performed on newborn babies. From what I understand, the Jewish people inherited the ritual of circumcision from Egypt, via Moses. For the Egyptians and the early Jews it was an act performed at puberty. This also applies to the various African and Australian Aboriginal traditions of circumcision. Whether I agree or disagree with those traditions is, for me, irrelevant. What stands out for me is that from my perspective there is a vast difference between:
- A rite of passage tradition to mark the transition from boyhood/girlhood into manhood/womanhood.
- A rite of passage tradition being performed in a non-traditional way, environment and context, with most of the tradition being swept aside, especially with key elements like conscious participation missing from the act.
I appreciate that your parents conducted your circumcision as a rite-of-passage. Although I am curious to learn more about what, from your perspective, this passage was. From which prior social status to which new social status did you transition? From what previous human condition to what new human condition? These are the universal intentions of most, if not all, traditional rites-of-passage.
Surely the challenge of coming through the birth canal is nature’s rite-of-passage from being in the womb to being in the world. Our ancestors seemed to think so (at least as far as circumcision goes), since the ritual of circumcision was not traditionally performed at that early stage in life. It was typically performed at puberty, at which point the person undergoing the rite-of-passage was able to go through the experience consciously. When you said your circumcision was a “rite-of-passage” my first thought was that you and your parents had it performed at puberty (I know nothing of your background, or which country you were raised in, etc., so I didn’t see that as an outright impossibility). Since it happened at birth, or shortly thereafter, I am curious what you recall of the experience? What were your feelings at the time? What did it represent for you at that time? How has that experience helped define you as a man, and as a human being in this world?
In my research for this article, I came across a number of interesting articles on the Jewish Circumcision website.
Both are well worth reading. In the above text, I’ve included numerous quotes from these articles. Here’s a few more noteworthy quotes:
Because most Jews are non-traditional and are not aware of the religious meaning of circumcision, most Jewish circumcisions are done for cultural not religious reasons. These cultural reasons often tend to be related to beliefs, attitudes, and feelings about Jewish survival and identity. (Jewish circumcision was never intended as a health measure, and there is no proven health benefit from circumcision.) For example, an argument for Jewish circumcision is that it ensures the survival of the Jewish people. This contention is especially compelling because of our long history of having to fight to survive. But the biggest threat to survival today is assimilation, and there is no evidence that circumcision prevents or slows it. According to the National Jewish Population Survey, more than half of all Jews who marry choose a non-Jewish spouse. [6]Circumcision: A Source of Jewish Pain
On the subject of pain experienced during circumcision:
The increasing doubts about Jewish circumcision are based on the understanding that it causes harm. Anatomical, neurochemical, physiological, and behavioral studies confirm what mothers already know: infants feel pain. Drs. Anand and Hickey, in a comprehensive review of recent medical literature on newborn pain, conclude that newborn responses to pain are “similar to but greater than those in adult subjects.”11 This study is accepted by virtually all medical authorities and is often cited in the literature whenever there is a discussion of infant pain. As a surgical procedure, circumcision has been described as “among the most painful performed in neonatal medicine.”12 Studies of infant responses show that the pain of circumcision is not like that of a mere pin prick. It is severe and overwhelming. [7]Circumcision: A Source of Jewish Pain
The Business of Circumcision & Foreskin tissue
I mentioned above that I think a significant reason routine male circumcision is still performed in America (on non-Jewish, non-Muslim babies) is, aside from ignorance and ongoing impact of puritanical fanaticism, because it’s big business *.
One must ask, what is behind this starkly obvious ignorance driving the practice of routine neonatal circumcision? I think it is worth knowing that many foreskins are sold to biomedical companies who reap significant profits from this tissue *. It is used to grow more tissue. Some of this is used in cosmetics, and much of it is used for reconstructive and cosmetic surgery. The average circumcised foreskin can be used to grow approximately 4 acres of tissue! This tissue sells for around $3,000 a square foot (as of 2012, at the time of writing this). There are 174,240 sq. ft. in 4 acres, so that comes to a potential $522 million dollars of “product” from a single foreskin.
There is a Vice article titled ‘Beauty Industry Part of Foreskin Flesh Trade, Anti-Circumcision Activists Warn‘ which gets into this topic of the foreskin business.
Simply put, reportedly large sums of money are being made from human foreskins. To top it off, often the parent (or medical insurance) will actually pay for the procedure to be done! So the doctor and/or hospital makes money from the parents and a great deal more from the sale of the removed tissue to biomedical companies. I suspect that this multi-billion-dollar industry is a major reason why propaganda about male circumcision continues to be spread in the medical community. I should mention that in real terms, the actual dollar value of each foreskin is much less, and is estimated to be around $100,000. The whole foreskin business is estimated to be about $10 billion. I suspect it is much more, looking at the figures I just mentioned, but perhaps there are reasons for each foreskin not being grown to produce a full 4 acres of new tissue.
There’s also the potential medical costs (which equates to income for the medical and pharmaceutical establishment) of performing circumcisions. Dan Bollinger, in his 2012 article ‘High Cost of Circumcision: $3.6 Billion Annually‘ argues that (as of 2012) circumcision brings in an estimated ~$3.6 billion of income. His figured don’t account for any money made on the selling (and subsequent growth and then sales), of foreskin tissue.
The other side of this argument asserts that failure to circumcise males is costing society a lot of money, as detailed in the above-mentioned 2012 article, Declining Rates of U.S. Infant Male Circumcision Could Add Billions to Health Care Costs, Experts Warn. The authors’ intro states,
A team of disease experts and health economists at Johns Hopkins warns that steadily declining rates of U.S. infant male circumcision could add more than $4.4 billion in avoidable health care costs if rates over the next decade drop to levels now seen in Europe.
[[ * Note: When I first wrote much of the content of this article, for posting to a forum and sharing with a client, I had on hand data and information on the sale of foreskin tissue to and within the biomedical industry. Whilst composing this article you’re reading here, I’ve been unable to find some of the information I had read on the business of foreskin tissue. ]]
My Experience and Final Comments
I was born in New Zealand where circumcision was, for a time, also practiced, but not in recent decades. Thankfully, in the late 1960s my mother had her first son while living short-term in Australia, and her maternity doctor was not an advocate of circumcision. Circumcision was still relatively common in Australia at that time. Her doctor said it’s up to you, and that there’s no medical reason for doing it. So my mother didn’t do it. When my other brother and I were born later, in New Zealand, she did not opt for this procedure (not wanting her three sons to be different in this regard). I feel very thankful to my mother and that progressively minded doctor in Australia. Having been raised in New Zealand (70s onwards), most male boys my age, whom I knew, had their penises intact.
It was only when I was in a relationship with a Canadian in my early 20s I found out there was a stigma around the intact penis in North America. She’d never seen one before, so it was a topic of much discussion when in the early stage of our relationship. I’ve heard stories of boys in North America being ostracized because they are not circumcised. To me it’s interesting in a country, which proudly claims to be “the land of the free”, males are not really free to have an intact/whole penis without being harassed. I can’t say I ever came across anything like that in my youth in New Zealand. Circumcision today seems to be very much an “American” thing (aside from its practice among Jewish and Muslim adherents).
From my perspective, neonatal male circumcision is barbaric. I don’t see it as less barbaric than female circumcision. It’s unjustified. Also, the argument neonatal circumcision is a rite-of-passage is delusional, at best. I have no issue with young coming-of-age males consciously choose to undergo circumcision as a rite-of-passage, or even out of personal preference. That’s their free choice. But that’s a very different matter from forcing a needless, exceedingly painful, and traumatic surgical procedure on the penis of new-born babies.
Videos of neonatal male circumcision:
- https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/plastibell-technique.html
- https://intramed.ca/circumcision/video/
Further reading on male circumcision:
- Doctors Opposing Circumcision
- Circumcision, cultural bias, and the question of consent
- Male circumcision in the United States: The History, an analysis of the discourse, and a philosophical interpretation
- ‘Unethical and harmful’: the case against circumcising baby boys
- Painful Cuts: The Case for Infant Circumcision Is Weakening
- Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights
- Beauty Industry Part of Foreskin Flesh Trade, Anti-Circumcision Activists Warn
- Why Human Foreskin Is a Hot Commodity in Science
- Intact Wiki
- Informed Consent for Neonatal Circumcision: An Ethical and Legal Conundrum
- Infant Male Circumcision is Not in the Best Interests of the Health and Rights of the Child
- BOOK: What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About(TM): Circumcision
Footnotes & References
Recent Comments