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
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.
LikeLike
Your sons are extremely lucky. It’s really sad how many new mothers are pressured – often by doctors – to have their sons circumcised.
LikeLike
A silly practise, but if it makes money, than the US is the country for putting that first. Money before everything!
LikeLike
As the film points out, the procedure isn’t without medical risk, to say nothing of potential psychological issues.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
The immense profits they make off it are also pretty sickening. Thanks for your comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
It’s a non-issue until you do it to your son! Then it becomes an issue of child mutilation!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No doubt!
My intent was not to downplay this issue. I just realized I had never really considered this before.
It was an Aha moment.
LikeLike
It’s really scary sometimes how often these systematic abuses are hidden from us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s what I mean. I just haven’t ever considered if I would have been better off not being circumcised.
Now that I think about, how can mutilation of the body ever be a good thing?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Finding Truth In an Illusory World.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Very illuminating, Gerry. That’s quite a chunk of change. No wonder the practice is so prevalent.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this. Female genital mutilation is a shocking thing – but do it to a boy and no problem! If God hadn’t wanted us to have foreskins, he/she wouldn’t have attached them in the first place. You may be interested in a post I wrote a couple of years back: http://turkeyfile.com/2012/09/18/the-circumcision-debate-to-snip-or-not-to-snip/
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, Alan. In my view it is assault.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All babies are born perfect no modification needed.
LikeLike
Wow. I just checked out your website. How inspiring to see men organizing against this barbaric practice. Bravo.
Others should have a look: http://oregonintactivist.com/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank You it is a topic that needs to be addressed and a practice that needs to be stopped.
LikeLike
It’s barbaric, inhumane and criminal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s really sad when greed and making money replaces any semblance of an ethical values system.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on One Tawny Stranger.
LikeLike