Traditional Justifications for Male Circumcision in North America

Male circumcision in North America has its beginnings in the early years of a medical revolution that would transform the world, moving medicine from the realm of religion and superstition to that of science. There are very many excellent books and websites that talk about male circumcision's place in this history in great detail with citations -- and particularly as to how it managed to survive the transition from its roots in superstition and religion to its current place in pseudo-science.

However, this history is not within the purview of this short informational page. Rather I am posting this discussion to give a very brief overview of the context and absurdity in which HIV/AIDS has arisen as the next justification for male circumcision at a time of its relative decline in North America.

Most discussions of male circumcision until recently have been directed at new parents. Male circumcision is primarily a phenomenon of infancy and new parenthood. Chatty parenting pieces have focused on allaying the fears of parents who may be confronting the natural fear of putting their newborn through surgery without obvious merit. These journalistic pieces typically seek to soothe jitters, reassure the parents of the practice's relevance, and encourage its maintenance.

The most common of the themes are hygiene, cancer, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, and appearance.

Hygiene

Hygiene of course is the least credible justification of the reasons for removing sexual tissue from a newborn child. Hygiene is code for implying that boys and young men lack an innate disposition to adhere to reasonable standards of hygiene. The hygiene argument is generally presented in a paternalistic tone, as if the parents are doing the individual a favor by removing "dirty" tissue. It has its roots firmly in Christian theology and religion, prior to the medical revolution mentioned above. It is probable that it owes a great deal to the original justification: to prevent "unclean" practices, specifically masturbation.

Cancer

Dire warnings of penile cancer follow next in line. Clearly, this is rather obvious scare-mongering. After all, what could be scarier? It's the most transparent attempt to convince reluctant parents since this cancer is extraordinarily rare in all populations regardless of circumcision status, and actually occurs in lower numbers in some intact European countries. Next, cervical cancer is offered, essentially, to appeal to parental sympathy or fears concerning a boy's eventual female partner's risk. It's another way to say, don't be selfish. If you care about your son's partner or women or even your son's ability to attract women (also related to appearance), you'll give up his foreskin. The cancer scare has its roots in fear and guilt.

Urinary Tract Infections

This temptation did not appear until the 1980s. It amounts to drastic medical intervention for a minor, fairly uncommon (1 in 181 by some estimates) and easily treatable condition. It alone hasn't always been terribly persuasive. However, the attention paid to it in recent years has supplanted the other reasons to a certain degree, particularly the cancer scare. However, it and cancer are often, if not always, offered together in the media for their cumulative effect in making the case.

Sexually Transmitted Disease

Sex is scary. Disease is scary. Shame is attached to both at the hip. The popular literature capitalizes on all three to make the case for infant circumcision. STI reduction has a history of swinging wildly from "proven" to "lacking sufficient evidence" due to dozens of medical studies that the major medical organizations have called "complicated and contradictory." Yet, the mainstream media offers STIs as proved beyond any doubt in most articles.

Appearance

The mythical locker room experience is trotted out just in case the reader needs a little extra convincing. This one is mere pretext. The locker room argument that boys will be ridiculed for looking different from their peers comes from a time in the 1970s and before when boys actually took showers after physical education class. Kids haven't done that for at least 30-50 years depending on where you live in the United States. And even if they did (and made comparisons), it assumes a fragility in the male psyche that is unconvincing in addition to being contradictory to the other argument that's implied in the subtext: men don't flinch at the prospect of the pain, especially (and ironically) the pain of others, i.e. the child's pain. (The irony just keeps coming when you consider that 1) if no one was circumcised, any alleged peer pressure would disappear, and 2) the pain of adult circumcision is another justification for doing it in infancy -- when the kid supposedly won't suffer any effects from the pain.)

The other appearance argument relates to attractiveness to women. This argument undermines every attempt at reassuring males generally of their physical acceptability. Ironically, the objection to perceived acceptable norms of appearance and beauty is not acknowledged by the proponents of this absurd argument. It also presumes to speak for all women and fails to take into account the obvious irreversible nature of the procedure in the case where a woman may actually prefer an intact penis.

Conclusion

It's important to remember that circumcision in America is a sociological phenomenon. It's not so much a health issue as a conformity issue. As for HIV/AIDS, men (and women) don't catch HIV through vaginal sex for the most part in the United States. People don't get penis cancer much here, either. Cervical cancer is caused by the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and we have not one, but two vaccines for that now. Kids don't take showers together anymore -- thanks in large part to a pervasive fear of "inappropriate" behavior if not among the kids themselves, then by their supervising adults -- which speaks, at least in part, to a healthy homophobia in America. The old justifications never held much water properly analyzed, but now they are suffering a slow motion crash of credibility. Even the ardent proponents of the practice see this.

The real reasons men and parents generally go on circumcising their boys are parent-centered (and self-centered). Parents need to feel justified in their past parenting decisions or in the decisions their own parents have made for them. This recent spate of circumcision news is not about HIV. It is about American society. It is about control, and self-image, and letting go of abuse. It is not unlike the conflict American society has dealt with in issues of race, feminism, homosexuality, and economic inequality.

Lastly, I say with some trepidation that America's still quite formidable but declining influence in the world has made projection of said influence all the more important to society. Hence, the American researchers now push circumcision in Africa, perhaps the last place this kind of colonialism is still possible in the current world political climate, and of course, have used their research to reinforce the practice here.

TJMCNA vers. 0.4 [updated 6/5/2007]