Circumcision: An Argumentative Analysis

A very much heated and touchy talked about debate is whether or not to circumcise our nations young baby boys and the opinions are vast. Circumcision involves the surgical removal of the foreskin of a male (Our Sexuality, Pg 112). Some parents choose to remove the foreskin due to obligatory cultural and religious beliefs. Others argue that it is more hygienic, aesthetic, and will prevent STD’s later in the young boys life. However, this is a very neglectful argument and does not take in an infinite amount of counter arguments. If I were to have a son, I would not choose to have him circumcised due to the pain infants and young boys go through, its comparison to female circumcision, the loss of sensitivity, it being ultimately the boy’s choice,
and alternative ways to ensure hygiene. Denise Leto, a mother who chose not to circumcise her two boys, discusses her midwife’s bumper sticker in the article titled To Cut or not?
Circumcision Controversy Flares by MSNBC author Victoria Clayton. Leto’s midwife’s bumper sticker reads, “100 percent of babies oppose circumcision” (Class Reader, Pg 117), and this is absolutely true. Less than half of infant boys that undergo this procedure receive analgesia (Our Sexuality Pg. 126). The other infant boys either are too small to receive any analgesia or their parents opt not to allow it. Complications from the surgery include bleeding, infection, cutting the foreskin too short or too long, and improper healing. The pain associated with circumcision could have long-lasting negative effects on future infant behavior as well as health risks such as hemorrhage, infections, mutilation, shock, and psychological trauma. The American Academy of Pediatrics changed their stance on the debate from a neutral one to a moderate opposition. If the AAP has an opposition to a procedure that many young boys have to endure, why are we still doing this to the nations baby
boys? When Americans think of female circumcision, they often are appalled and think of mutilation.
Female circumcision is done in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and was even practiced up until the early 1900’s in the United States. In some drastic cases, the whole exterior portion genitalia is removed and the vaginal walls are scraped raw (Our Sexuality, Chapter 4, Pg 83). However, most female circumcisions involve the removal of the clitoral hood and a majority of the women find this aesthetically more pleasing. An argument brought up for circumcision is that it is aesthetically pleasing. However, the foreskin of the penis is homologous to the clitoral hood (Lecture 10/23). If removing the clitoral hood of a female is viewed as mutilation and unacceptable, then why is the removal of the foreskin of a male is socially accepted and expected in our country? When determining whether or not to circumcise, a parent must contrast the two and due to male circumcision not being that different from female, I would opt not to have my son
circumcised. The male human body evolved with a foreskin attached to the tip of the penis, so it ultimately serves at least a few purposes. One main one is in covering the glans to ensure sensitivity. Some people argue that since the glans are fully exposed, circumcised men are more sensitive to sexual touch. However, because the head is exposed, the toughening effect of constant exposure to chafing causes circumcised men to be less sensitive. In another MSNBC article title Ouch! Readers React to Circumcision Debate, a respondent discusses her experience with her husbands late circumcision and says, “Before he was circumcised he had a very heightened sense of sexual pleasure and I very much enjoyed that with him, but after the procedure he was different sexually…sexually we are very different and I can tell he wishes he never had the procedure done (Reader, Pg 122). Uncircumcised men still have all their pieces, and all their nerves, causing them to feel the most sexual sensations like all men should. Many of the respondents from the Ouch! article voiced that the boy’s body belongs to the infant boy’s, and that any permanent and unnecessary surgery done should be his choice when he’s older. Jim from Hutsville, Alabama states, “Parents have no rights to determine what is best for their child in the intactist view. What we need now is governmental intervention since parents are too stupid to determine what is best for their child.” In the documentary, Private Dicks an exposed man discusses his anger having his foreskin taken away (Lecture, 10/16). Due to his circumcision, he had a condition where there was not enough skin to pull back during an erection, causing his genitalia to become deformed. The man was extremely scarred by what happened to him, did not have much of a sex life, and felt as if he had no say in what was done to him; and he absolutely did not. If a male wants to be circumcised, it should be when he has the ability to choose himself. Not when he is an innocent baby that has no say. If a man feels that it would be easier hygienically and aesthetically, then he would choose to. Therefore, I would leave the decision up to my son and I would not have him circumcised as an infant. A CNN special on circumcision also discussed this controversial subject and followed a family who just had the procedure done of their infant. When the mother was asked why she chose to have this done to him, she simple responded with “it’s cleaner’ (Lecture, 10/16). This is the biggest argument for proponents of circumcision, and it is also the weakest. For basic hygiene, the argument is the head is exposed, allowing for better genital hygiene and less urinary tract infections. However, this argument is ridiculous since behavior, lifestyle, and cleaning habits make the biggest impacts on health, not the foreskin. He cannot simply remove the foreskin just because it is easier to maintain hygiene. Dr. Reiss, the vice president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, puts it accurately when he states, “We don’t cut an eyelid off because we have a sty.” (Reader, Pg 118). There is also an argument that removing the foreskin will lead to a lower risk of acquiring penile cancer. However, Dr. Reiss also states, “We don’t cut breasts off to prevent breast cancer”, and that penile cancer is such a rare disorder among circumcised as well as uncircumcised men. People for circumcising young boys also argue that the transmission of STD’s is lowered in circumcised males. However, with proper sex education, no one should be having this problem and I will even make an argument compared to Dr. Reiss’ and say we don’t remove labia to prevent the transmission of STD’s. Circumcising our baby boys is mutilation in order to obtain an easier route to better hygiene, and this practice should be stopped.
The personal experience I have had is not being circumcised myself, but being with a circumcised male. My boyfriend’s parents chose not to have him circumcised for, what he thinks, going against Jewish practices. I had this conversation with him before I chose to write this essay because it is something I very strongly believe in. He said he never felt self conscious and never even knew he was a minority among young men since he never was fully undressed in front of other boys and did not experience “locker room trauma”. When he was a boy, his father taught him how to clean under the foreskin properly so hygiene was never a problem. Also, when it comes to sexual function, he argues the foreskin serves a purpose. He says it feels good when it is stimulated and has many nerve endings but its main job is to keep the head very sensitive. When the head is exposed in circumcised individuals, it chafes against clothing, leaving the head of the penis not as sexually sensitive as it should be. He says that it is very uncomfortable when the foreskin is pulled back and he cannot stand it rubbing against his clothing. This is what circumcised males experience everyday. Him being uncircumcised was never a problem for me and girls should socially accept it more instead of finding it repulsive. Being uncircumcised to him is not a problem and actually is beneficial and it should be for every infant boy.