Christopher Hitchens often used circumcision as an example of the problems with religion. His description of the operation was clearly referencing the Jewish custom called a “bris” or “Brit milah”. This article looks at circumcision in a completely secular way.
The medical procedure of circumcision is usually done shortly after birth but not only then. In my life, I have been circumcised twice – once very shortly after being born, the second time at the age of 61. I only recall the pain from the second occurrence. I would not be surprised to learn that I cried the first time.
I have another memory from when I was 22. I was having a conversation with a couple where he had just been circumcised earlier the same day. His reasoning was “you only live once”. In other words, he was expecting the circumcision to improve his life – I assume his sex life. In the rest of this article, I’m only discussing neonatal male circumcision unless otherwise noted.
In the 21st century, we hear that male circumcision reduces a male’s sexual enjoyment. Since that is a statement that seems to be untestable, how did our culture change? The change is so profound that Iceland is considering banning the procedure (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/world/europe/circumcision-ban-iceland.html). A court in Germany ruled the procedure to be an assault (https://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/history-ideas/2018/08/will-europe-ban-circumcision/). An attempt was made to put the issue on the ballot in San Francisco (https://abcnews.go.com/Health/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-striken/story?id=14179024 ).
I suspect a confluence of events led to the current state of this issue. By 1996, 58% of all pediatricians under the age of 45 were women. This was a big change. “In 1976 the number of women in medical school had risen 300% above the 1960 figure.“ https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2016/01/fight-women-doctors/ I wonder how this new cohort of medical doctors felt about performing circumcisions.
At about the same time (the 1970s), the entire culture seemed to be wondering “what is wrong with men?”. The psychological effects of male circumcision seemed plausible.
A major inflection point occurred around 1980 when the term female genital mutilation (FGM) was first used (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female%20genital%20mutilation ). Some started to link FGM with male circumcision by referring to FGM as female circumcision . Perhaps this was meant as a kind of cultural relativism. This was an unwarranted stretch of the language. “Circum” is a prefix meaning “around” and “cision” means to cut. Hence circumcision means to “cut around”. FGM is done in different ways but it often includes a Clitoridectomy – removal of the clitoris; it is not cutting “around” something. But the connection has been made. A counter-claim could be made that male circumcision is performing an “ectomy” despite the milder definition of the word.
Once that connection is made one can see where this is going. Unless you have very different values than I do you are fully opposed to FGM. In the United States, it is exceedingly rare and probably a prosecutable crime. But when FGM is linked to circumcision, you have to consider the possibility that male circumcision is just as wrong.
The rationale behind FGM is to reduce a woman’s sexual pleasure. Are we to believe that a patriarchal civilization wants to reduce a man’s sexual pleasure? That seems unlikely. But as stated earlier, how are you going to run the experiment that says circumcised men enjoy sex less? If you can, how will you factor in a woman’s preference?
Others have sought to clarify the benefits and negatives of circumcision. One issue is whether or not males remember the pain of infant circumcision. See https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage which is clearly opposed to circumcision on psychological grounds after the CDC in 2012 promoted circumcision of male children. Despite the push back the CDC continues the same recommendation in 2017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478224/ which includes “inform all uncircumcised adolescent and adult males who engage in heterosexual sex about the significant, but partial, efficacy of male circumcision in reducing the risk of acquiring HIV and some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) through heterosexual sex, as well as about the potential harms of male circumcision”.
As a skeptic, my “goto” in this case is the SkepDoc, Dr. Harriet Hall, who says “What all this really boils down to is that there are no compelling scientific arguments for or against neonatal circumcision.” https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/circumcision-what-does-science-say/ This 2008 article has a large number of dissenting comments.
