Is circumcising an infant an initiation of force?

When you start to get interested in Objectivism, you begin to analyze nearly every aspect of life through an Objectivist "lense". I recently saw the Seinfeld episode where they attend the Bris ceremony with the wacky Mohel (hilarious episode, by the way), and I got to thinking about the practice of circumcision. Routine non-ritualistic male circumcision is a uniquely American phenomenon, despite the fact that not one major medical association believes its necessary (except when a specific medical condition requires it - which is apparently rare). What right do parents have to arbitrarilly slice up your member? Shouldn't this be something men consent to?

Post 1

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:02pm

Penn and Teller did an episode of BULLSHIT! exposing the unneccesary procedure. Catch if if you have the stomach...

Post 2

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:17pm

Pete,

Now that is a one topic where morality should serve as guide. I have not read anything on that from an ethics standpoint.

The only moral purpose ever proposed for doing that I know of is a religious one - that Jehovah commanded it.

Michael

Post 3

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:31pm

If being healthy is moral, than initially it stemmed from a moral standpoint...

Post 4

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:55pm

From what I've read, evolution's purpose for the foreskin is to protect your sensitive penis head from being scraped, sanded, etc. To keep a non-circumcised penis healthy, you just lightly pull the skin back and rinse. This shouldn't be done to children, its not really necessary until they can do it for themselves.

Yes, I'd say let the man keep his foreskin, and then once he is older he can decide for himself whether he wants to cut it off.

Why cut it off? What reason is there?

Post 5

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 9:04pm

Dean,

I once read about great efforts being expended on the technology of reimplanting the foreskin for those who so wish.

I think there are even some lawsuits, but I would have to research it.

I do remember reading a medical essay on the complete fallacy of the foreskin being unhealthy.

A quick Google search should uncover some of this for those interested.

Michael

Post 6

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 10:31pm

My Google efforts on this topic yielded the following from the American Medical Association:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

Post 7

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 4:03am

I asked about this on an Objectivist parenting list on Yahoo! Groups a few years ago. It got mixed responses, but generally we agreed we could not find a good medical reason to perform it. Whether it creates some of the "psychological trauma" on an infant some argue is another matter. I recall The Leonard Peikoff Show examining this and arguing that the procedure traumatizes males for life.

In any case, given how routine this procedure is, you will need to make explicit instructions to the doctors not to perform this procedure -- and then carefully examine your medical bills to make sure they did not charge you for it anyway. Years ago, a retired nurse said that her hospital's billing system was so sloppy that a bill listed a line item of foreskin circumcision for a female infant.

I have heard that the U.S. military used to make circumcision a routine practice on "uncut" recruits during boot camp. The idea was that the absence of hygienic soap and water in the field, combined with the increased risks of contracting sexually transmitted diseases due to the foreskin folds, motivated this painful surgery. Can anyone corroborate or refute this?

Post 8

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 6:03am

While initially it stemmed from 'health' reasons, under guise of religious proscription, much in the same manner of eating pork and similar foods, and other practices, this must be taken in context - several millenias from then to the hygenicness of today's world, where the concept of cleanliness is multifold greater than was ever even dreamed of back then, and the 'reasonableness' of then does not apply today... to say nothing of incresed knowledge of illnesses, germ theory, anatomy, medical knowledge in general...

Post 9

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 9:44am

I always bring this up when people rave about the injustices of female circumcisions in certain cultures. What about male circumsucion? Half the time they themselves have male children who are circumcised. Granted I hear that female circumcision is far worse, but the principle remains.

Two coworkers were talking about this yesterday, one was telling how distrubing it was to have to hold his sons arms back while the doctor performed the procedure.

The other said his uncle when in boot camp was indeed forced to have his foreskin removed.

Personally I am circumcised and I do not remember it nor do I feel it 'traumatized me for life' If something traumatizes you for life its because you obsess over it and make it traumatize you for life. I am surprised such a thing was suggested by objectivists.

Michael F Dickey

Post 10

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 12:46pm

I am circumcised and certainly have experienced no trauma - everything seems to work fine. Although maybe this a question for the ladies - ladies, which do you prefer? Cut or uncut?

Post 11

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 11:09am

The American Medical Association states:

"A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in
large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather
than medical concerns"

and

"Major factors in parental decison-making are the father's circumcision status, opinions of family members and friends, a desire for conformity in their son's appearance, and the belief that the circumcised penis is easier to care for with respect to local hygeine."

Is another major factor the desire of parents to increase their son's appeal to the opposite sex? i.e. do women prefer their men circumcised? I would imagine so but maybe I'm off base here. Anyone care to comment?

Gerald

Post 12

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 1:27pm

An atheist woman of my acquaintance through an Orlando freethought group is in nursing school. Given her secular mindset and her medical training, she seemed a good person to ask about this. She said that the main benefit she perceived was the sexual enjoyment of the woman. In her experience, the circumcised penis simply feels better to her than the uncircumcised penis -- and she has experienced both kinds of partners.

Years ago in Dear Abby, I also read the testimonial of a woman who had experienced both types of partners and she said she consistently experienced bladder infections with "uncut" men. This anecdote is not enough to induce a conclusion but clearly points to hygiene issues.

Post 13

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:27pm

Back to the original question - is routine circumcision an intitiation of force? I can honestly only conclude "yes".

Post 14

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:41pm

Pete,

Fully agreed.

Chopping the pecker of the defenseless is nonconsensual initiation and full use of force.

Michael

Post 15

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:30am

Thanks for asking, Pete! As a young woman who grew up in the US, I only knew men who were circumcised... and then I started traveling! :-) And I can say with 100% certainty, that I'd rather be with a girl. No wait, that's another topic. I can say, with 100% certainty, that I prefer uncircumcised men.

Foreskins are fun! Uncut cocks feel different - less friction. You can have sex indefinitely without discomfort. You can have sex in water (without strange silicone-based lubricants!) Cocks with foreskins are way more sensitive - and everyone knows that if your partner is enjoying it more, you are also enjoying it more. After being with uncut guys it was hard for me to go back to the old way. Giving head to a guy with no foreskin is about as exciting as planting cabbage. This is the real trauma for boy children who are circumcised: they won't enjoy sex as much.

Post 16

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:41am

Interesting reply, Ashley. I wonder if there are studies somewhere surveying women to rank their satisfaction with cut versus uncut men. If the main detriment to the men is the dissatisfaction of their partners, that is still a detriment. How would one conduct an objective scientific study of this?

Post 17

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:01am

How would one conduct an objective scientific study of this?

Um... I can think of a way. But I don't have that kind of time.

Summer

;o)

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 10/24, 7:01am)

Post 18

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 4:10pm

Luke:

No way was I saying that the main detriment to the men was the dissatisfaction of their partners! I said: "Cocks with foreskins are way more sensitive" - that reads to me: the main detriment to the men was less satisfying sex for them! I think it would be hard to convince a guy who is circumcised that sex could be feeling a lot better, but my experience from the other end of it (so to speak) is that it's feeling a lot better to the guy with the foreskin (which does make it more exciting for me). The reaction is just so much more intense.

That's about all I have to say about that.

Post 19

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 5:44pm