Male Genital Mutilation

On watching this film, I was really horrified how much male circumcision rates have increased since I left the US. In the eighties and nineties, they seemed to be declining as more feminists entered the medical profession. Like many of my feminist friends, I have always opposed circumcision, along with a variety of child rearing practices that seem to affect men’s sensitivity and self-confidence. Contrary to the claims of pro-circumcision advocates, young infants experience pain as acutely as adults do. Now that the US has become both post-feminist and post-racial, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that male circumcision is making a comeback.

Circumcize Me?

BBC (2012)

Film Review

Circumcise Me? examines the alarming US cultural practice of genitally mutilating their male infants. It also asks why American doctors have parted ways with their British (and Australia and New Zealand) counterparts in this area. The documentary demonstrates how infants are strapped down at eight days of age, enabling a surgical circumcision specialist to snip off the foreskin with a specialized circumcision instrument.

Medical circumcision was first introduced to the English speaking world in 1860. Doctors claimed it inhibited masturbation and cases of insanity caused by masturbation. Nineteenth century medical textbooks stress that the pain of circumcision is essential – theoretically the cure only worked if young boys to associated the penis with pain and punishment.

During the twentieth century, the rationale for medical circumcision changed. Without a shred of research evidence doctors (many US doctors still do) claimed that uncircumcised men were at higher risk for cancer of the penis, herpes, warts and HIV. When these claims were debunked, doctors claimed the partners of circumcised men were at higher risk of cervical cancer. When high rates of cervical cancer among Israeli women (the Jewish and Muslim religion requires all men to be circumcised) suggested otherwise, circumcision rates in most English speaking countries declined. In the 1940s, 50 percent of British male infants were circumcised. By 2012, the figure had decreased to 3%. This contrasts with Fargo North Dakota which, in 2012, had a circumcision rate of 90%.

Although sexologists don’t do population research, the film features several who have seen a link between loss of glans* sensitivity in circumcised men and erectile dysfunction in middle age. The filmmakers also interview circumcised men who have restored their foreskins (either through surgery or a procedure known as “tugging”**) . All report greatly enhance sensitivity and functioning.

American men seem to want their sons circumcised though their motivation is unclear. In the film, the most common reasons given are “Everyone else does it” and “I want him to look like me.”

In a candid interview at the end of the film, a British Medical Association representative refers to the US obsession with circumcision as a risky unethical procedure that continues that’s mainly driven by a multimillion dollar surgical circumcision industry.

*Phimosis is a congenital narrow of the foreskin which prevents it from being retracted.
** “Tugging” – A technique for foreskin restoration. See foreskin restoration


22 thoughts on “Male Genital Mutilation

  1. Yes, it’s mutilation. Mindless. And yet another profit opportunity. The doctor who brought my son’s into the world was honest. When asked if there was any medical benefit behind the procedure, he answered, “No.” And so ‘no’ it was. Sadly, my boys don’t look anything like me. And I can’t say they’ve cost us more in tissue than I must have cost my parents.


  2. I always thought this was a political / religious practice with no merit in medical fact. That’s SICK and I’m “marked” for life. I mean, there’s no going back now. And I assume by my experience in the Army showers that it’s a very wide spread practice effecting most males.


  3. This has always been a non issue for me. I am circumcised, but it has never caused me any difficulty. But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t negatively effected other men.

    Probably this is a non issue for me, because of my age, and because, as this points out, it’s a forgone conclusion in the US.

    I had a few friends throughout the years who weren’t circumcised, and they were Christians as well. But among the men I have known, I have never heard one complain of issues from being circumcised. Of course, this could be because of performance issues, I guess? Men don’t like to admit to such problems.

    Interesting. I guess I never considered any of this before.


  4. Too squeamish to watch the film but intrigued why 90% in Fargo and looked at cost for outpatient average was $4,700 and average for impatiens for surgery in US is 7 times more


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.