By Jaclyn Weiner
Over the course of American history, circumcision has become the norm. For years circumcision was only practiced by followers of particular religions, such as Judaism and Islam. Over time, it became popular among secular Americans due to widespread propaganda, the American sex-phobia of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and incomplete and biased medical research. American society is one of very few that practices circumcision on a widespread scale.
As multiple generations have passed, parents have rarely questioned whether or not they should have their newborns circumcised, since circumcision has become commonplace in America. Only recently have parents started to question the true health benefits and morality of circumcision.
Still, the number of newborn circumcisions performed in hospitals is high. Research conducted within the past several years by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that the rate of newborn circumcision preformed in hospitals has decreased to about 58 percent, but is still the majority.
Statistics obtained between July 1963 and December 1965 by Cycle III of the Health Examination Services, Education and Welfare found that 76 percent of boys born in the late 1940s and early 1950s were circumcised. The study also found that in some hospitals, more than 90 percent of boys were circumcised.
Many believe circumcision became popular due to medical research, but the popularization predated medical research on the subject. It was believed during the late 1800s and 1900s that masturbation was a sin, was vile and caused many diseases such as epilepsy, alcoholism, hysteria, poor development, impotence, “masturbatory insanity” and mental illness.
Circumcision was suggested as a means to prevent children from having the desire to masturbate when they matured. The foreskin of the penis has thousands of nerve endings and is the only part of the penis that is capable of movability. It was believed that the removal of foreskin of the penis would decrease sexual urges by reducing sexual sensitivity and restricting movement of the shaft. Female circumcision was also proposed but, thankfully, did not catch on.
One of the biggest supporters of circumcision and the anti-masturbation movement was John Harvey Kellogg, the inventor of corn flakes. Kellogg was a Michigan doctor who basically hated sex. He thought that it caused physical, emotional and spiritual harm to human beings. Kellogg never consummated his marriage, slept in a separate room from his wife and adopted all of his children.
Kellogg’s discomfort with sex made him a major contributor to the sex-phobic movements of the 1900s. Kellogg’s invention of corn flakes actually stemmed from it. He believed that flavorful and seasoned foods contributed to an increase in sexual desire. Kellogg developed multiple-flaked grain breakfast cereals, including corn flakes, to be used as healthy, anti-masturbatory breakfast meals. His brother was business-savvy and wanted to sell the flaked cereal to the general public.
Though Kellogg’s flaked corn was a large contribution to the anti-masturbatory movement, it definitely did not stop there. Kellogg was a vocal supporter of the circumcision for both girls and boys. He advocated the threading of silver wire through boys’ foreskin, to prevent erections and cause irritation. He also advocated for the use of carbolic acid to burn the clitoris of girls, and sometimes employed the practice.
The anti-masturbatory and pro-circumcision movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s greatly contributed to the normalcy of the practice of circumcision in America today. The sex-phobic and ill-informed propaganda has gone out of fashion, due to the new medical findings and a shift of popular views, but the effects remain.
Another big contributor to the popularization of circumcision in America is the medical research that has been done over the years that supports the practice. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), an American professional association of pediatricians, has said that circumcision might have various health benefits, such as easier hygienic upkeep, a decreased risk of urinary tract infections and a decreased risk of sexually-transmitted infections.
Although the AAP has recognized the possible health benefits of circumcision, they do not take a firm pro-circumcision stance. In 1975, the AAP stated in no uncertain terms that “there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.” In 1983, in 1999 and again in 2012, the AAP restated this position.
Circumcisions have risks. Problems may arise from the surgery, such as skin infections, bloodstream infections, bleeding, gangrene, scarring and surgical complications. The procedure also causes pain to the child. The foreskin plays an instrumental role during sex. Its movability provides a natural lubricant and it contains thousands of nerve endings. The foreskin also provides physical benefits — it protects the glans from forms of irritation, protects the sensitivity of the glans and protects against infection or scarring of the urinary opening.
Several of the pros of circumcision are not completely relevant in the modern age. Hygiene is not as much of an issue as it was in the past, due to clean running water and soap. Though circumcision is shown to somewhat decrease the risks of sexually transmitted diseases, so do condoms, which do not require the removal of part of the penis. Furthermore, babies cannot consent to this alteration of their body.
Even though the topic may be hard to talk about, opening up this conversation is important. Parents need to discuss the benefits and detriments of the practice of circumcision before they make this critical choice.
Jaclyn Weiner, FCRH ’18, is a communication and media studies major from Wantagh, New York.
Neil Curne: ” Equally, the risks and drawbacks from circumcision are recognised as being minimal, despite the wild and unsubstantiated claims made by Intactivists.”
Neil you are the one who is misinformed. Take it from someone who knows both ways. There is no such thing as a harmless circumcision. The claims made by Intactivists as you call us are no unsubstantiated at all. You mock what you don’t understand or care to educate yourself about.
Jacyn “Weiner” writing about circumcision? Really?
That circumcision has medical benefits is recognised by most national medical bodies, even those such as the NHS which oppose routine circumcision: the NHS just believes the benefits are too small in the West to justify the procedure. Equally, the risks and drawbacks from circumcision are recognised as being minimal, despite the wild and unsubstantiated claims made by Intactivists. The bottom line is that circumcision is a matter of parental choice and, since circumcision doesn’t cause significant harm, it is perfectly reasonable for the parents to take social and cultural reasons for circumcision into account when making the choice for their son. If you want to reduce harm to children there are FAR bigger problems you could be campaigning about.
“The bottom line is that circumcision is a matter of parental choice and, since circumcision doesn’t cause significant harm, it is perfectly reasonable for the parents to take social and cultural reasons for circumcision into account when making the choice for their son.”
You could likewise make this argument for infant labiaplasty and infant hoodectomy. But those are illegal to perform on infant females. Why then should circumcision be permitted on infant males? This is a matter of equality, pure and simple.
My penis my choice. What is so hard for so many to understand?
Thank you for this article! It definitely needs to be discussed. It’s a scary thought how some parents never stop to think, or research something that is so invasive upon a newborn with a healthy penis.
Quite frankly, it should not be a parental choice at all. Baby boys should be legally guaranteed the right to grow up with all of their genital tissue, just like girls are. It’s a matter of equality.
Parents are duped on two counts. That there is a decision to be made about circumcision or that it is their’s to make