Circumcision

I have always been fascinated by the act of circumcision. It is one of those acts that, even though I approve of the look of the penis afterward, I find so barbaric and unnecessary an act, that it honestly bewilders me why so many people still decide to circumcise their newborn sons, or to voluntarily submit to circumcision as an adult.

I know there are many arguments for why people say circumcision is a good thing. They say it makes the penis cleaner, reduces infections, reduces the risk of penile cancer, eliminates a problem called phimosis (where the foreskin becomes tight and in some cases painful), may help prevent the contraction of HIV, may reduce the rate of masturbation, may help provide skin for burn victims, may improve sexual longevity, and, as if the list wasn’t long enough already, makes the penis a more beautiful organ.

I dispute, or have issue with, most of these claims. For starters, circumcision as a means to improve cleanliness is so ridiculously absurd that I find it laughable. There is a great little invention called soap, and so long as a person washes with it on a regular basis, having a foreskin should be no problem.

Secondly, circumcision may honestly reduce the rate of infection that can occur under the foreskin, but I fail to see how circumcision is preferable to a small dose of penicillin, a swab of alcohol, or some other form of antibiotic or germ killing agent. And just because you are circumcised, doesn’t mean you will never get an infection—some infections can actually be caused because of the circumcision. And it occurs to me that the logic behind this reason is comparable to cutting off a baby’s ears because at some time in his life he might get ear infection. I don’t see anybody rushing out to cut off a baby’s ears any time soon, but apparently the logic makes sense to some if we’re talking about the penis.

Thirdly, of course, if you remove a part of the body, you eliminate the potential for cancer in that part of the body. But that doesn’t mean we should go chopping off every part of the body that could become cancerous when first born. If we did that, we’d have to remove the lungs, brain, pancreas, liver, and a whole host of other body parts that I’m sure most wouldn’t/couldn’t do without. And besides, we’re only talking about the “potential” for cancer. Just because you have a foreskin doesn’t mean you’re definitely going to get cancer. This reason to circumcise, like those before it, just seems moot to me. Leave the skin until there is cancer. Then, if necessary, circumcise.

Fourthly, as with cancer, circumcision to prevent the possibility of phimosis (or even other such similar problems) just seems extreme. Not all males with foreskins will grow up to have this problem, so why not leave their skin alone unless they do end up having this? And, in some cases, this problem can be solved over a period of time by simply stretching the foreskin over the glans little by little until the tightness is no longer significant.

Fifthly, it is absolutely stupid to believe that circumcision can prevent or in any serious rate reduce the risk of contracting HIV. I hear this argument and I just want to cringe by the misinformation and deceitfulness of it. Safe sex or abstinence is the only real prevention for contracting HIV. Circumcision is no cure, and it is frankly idiotic to be circumcised for this reason. Use a freaking condom and keep your skin—even if you get circumcised, you’ll still need to use a condom or practice abstinence to be any better protected. There is no real benefit here in being circumcised (and yet half of Africa is buying into this notion).

Sixthly, circumcision absolutely does not reduce the rate of or prevent the practice of masturbation. You need only ask those who are circumcised to know that this is true.

Seventhly, foreskins may be used for burn victims, and if so, at least they’re going to some good, but that doesn’t mean a person has no right to make the decision to contribute a part of himself for this reason. If an adult male wishes to have himself circumcised in order to help a burn victim, then I think that’s great. But to circumcise a baby for this reason, just isn’t right. Likewise, this applies to medical research and testing.

Eighthly, circumcision may improve sexual longevity? If this is true, it is probably only because the glans of the penis has become desensitized over a lifetime of being rubbed by clothing. That or the brain has learned to turn off such stimuli. I find either reason a poor excuse for circumcision. If you want longer sexual experiences, just stay in bed longer and try for round two and so forth (or practice holding off orgasm, either way).

Ninthly, I understand the arguments concerning looks. If you are circumcised and have a son, it may seem only natural to want your son’s penis to look like yours. But, looks shouldn’t really matter in this regard. If your son had your mother-in-law’s detestable green eyes (I’m not saying I dislike green eyes—it’s just an example) instead of your brown, is that a reason to have your son’s eyes removed or dye injected into them to make them brown? Of course not! You’d let them be. So, if your son isn’t born circumcised like you are, why not also just let him be in this regard?

And then for all those who find a circumcised penis more pleasant on the eyes, I can say that I sympathize, because I too prefer the look of a circumcised penis to one that is not circumcised. But I find this a shallow reason to have a newborn baby circumcised. Again, if the boy grows up and decides on his own that he wants his penis to look this way, then that would be great. But not all boys may want to grow up seeing a scar around their penis and the glans exposed all the time. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and in this case, each male should be given the choice to decide how his body should look. This should be a personal decision made by no one but the individual himself.

And now, in addition to the reasons I’ve already mentioned, here are some more good reasons not to circumcise. Each year, many newborn males die due to complications of circumcision—usually by bleeding to death. I don’t know about you, but to know that my son died due to an unnecessary procedure would bother me greatly. And then there are always potential problems in the healing process of circumcision. The wounds can become infected, skin bridges can form where the skin didn’t heal together fully, and in some cases the skin can fuse to the glans itself. There is also the potential for too much skin to be removed, causing erections as an adult to be painful due to the skin being tightened too much. And then there is the whole sensitivity issue. Some people believe circumcision causes no decrease in sensitivity, while others believe it does. We can think logically about this for a moment, and if we do, we might at least admit that to some degree circumcision does in fact cause some loss of sensitivity—either physically or perceived. As I mentioned earlier, if clothing is rubbed against the glans all the time, that would have to either numb the glans, or the brain would have to adapt by ignoring the stimuli. Otherwise, you’d always be sexually stimulated with each step you take. And from what research I’ve done, this seems true considering how many uncircumcised men talk about how sensitive the glans is. Most circumcised men don’t talk about their glans being sensitive just to the touch. A lot of uncircumcised men, however, do say this. But to know for any certainty on this issue, we’d have to ask someone who has been circumcised as an adult and experienced both worlds. Again, from what research I’ve done, most men who were circumcised as adults say there wasn’t a lot of decrease, but that there was some decrease in sensitivity after being circumcised. Depending on the person and their needs, however, I suppose loss of sensitivity could be a good thing or bad thing—perhaps someone is just way too sensitive uncircumcised to find pleasure when sexually stimulated. And then there is pain. Not until recent years did doctors do much, if anything, to decrease pain during circumcision—and many still won’t do anything to help prevent this today. Pinch a baby and tell me he can’t feel it. Cut off his foreskin and I’m sure he’ll feel that too (find any video online of infant circumcision and you’ll see a baby squalling). And then there is the healing time. It can take months for a baby to heal from being circumcised, same as with an adult. In both cases, this can bring discomfort, swelling, infection, and, yes, pain. And for a baby, any pain caused by circumcision is needless.

Then we come to the question of religion. Is it acceptable for Jews, Muslims, Christians, or other religious groups to circumcise their male sons? I would say no. I understand why people of faith would want to circumcise their sons if their religion dictates such a thing. However, just because you circumcise your son, doesn’t mean he will grow up to practice or believe in that faith. I hold to this belief, much as I do with infant baptism. I believe both should be a sign of faith on the individual’s part. If a man believes in God and wishes to follow Him in faith, then let him be baptized, or, in this case, circumcised. Either, I believe, should be a personal decision.

But let’s think about the religious aspects of circumcision a bit further. There are many religions out there. And there are many new religions formed all the time. We have allowed circumcision of infants because it has been practiced for thousands of years. But if one or the other of a more new religion began dictating that newborn males should be tattooed, would we allow this? Or if there was a mandate that the earlobes be cut off, or the right hand be branded, or the left hand pinky finger be removed (after all we can live without that finger), would be really approve or allow such practices? I seriously doubt it. And so, with that in mind, why would we continue to allow circumcision? Just because it’s been allowed for so long? Is that really a good reason? Keeping all of this in mind, I would say that not even religion is a great reason to circumcise.

I honestly don’t see any great reasons to circumcise a baby. There are some reasons to circumcise when a male gets older, but not at birth. And so I suggest that we as a nation begin rethinking this whole circumcision thing. For starters, let’s quit doing it just because it’s been the norm. And let’s stop being misinformed and fooled by people who have their own ulterior motives involved (paid off doctors, sadists, medical researchers/companies, religious groups, governments, and so forth). If we do, we may see a different norm develop in this country. And I’m sure the world wouldn’t fall apart if that were the case. Heck, most to the world’s men are uncircumcised anyway (ever wonder why).

Broken

I hope everyone had a good Christmas. Things were good on my end. I’d have liked to written a post beforehand, but I honestly couldn’t think of anything appropriate to write for the occasion. It hasn’t helped either that my mind has been overworked. I’ve had a lot going on lately.

Anyway, I’ve had something bugging me, and I wanted to share this and get it off my mind.

I remember writing some time back, either on this blog or as a commenter on another, that knowing Jesus makes life easier. I think I was wrong to believe that. This last year, I’ve not gone to church much at all. When I have, I’ve become guilt ridden, frustrated, angry, edgy, depressed, and faced battles of feeling really low self-esteem and self-worth. Life is not easier knowing Jesus. It can certainly be better in a lot of ways, but far from easy. Knowing Jesus takes a lot of work, and it takes a lot out of you.

I don’t know what’s wrong with me. This last year I’ve increasingly felt more and more of a resistance to anything God-related. I think, to an extent, it is because knowing Jesus is hard, and it brings to mind a lot of the negative aspects of my life/past. I don’t like feeling this resistance. It’s affected my faith in some rather major ways. I’ve had a lot of doubts about Christianity.

I hate saying or thinking that.

I know this is probably going to sound out in left field, but it’s something that really has weighed on my mind lately and something that has seriously caused some doubts in me. I don’t understand why God would be so vain as to require circumcision as a necessity to showing faith in Him (talking about the Israelites). Why would God make this requirement and then come down to Earth and preach a message that circumcision of the flesh is meaningless, and that it is actually circumcision of the heart that really counts? I’m confused by this. If physical circumcision was so important that God would threaten to cast out Moses for not circumcising his son, then why would He a few centuries later say that it’s not that important? I guess God can change His mind, but that in itself begs the question if God really is all-knowing, all-wise. I can’t help thinking that circumcision was simply an ancient custom adopted by the Israelites at some point and accredited as God’s commandment for His people later on. And if that is true, then perhaps a lot more of what we read about in the Old Testament is untrue, or at least not the whole truth. Perhaps there is indeed a God, but a lot of His so called commandments, really are not from Him at all, but made by people who simply thought they knew what was best for their people during the times in which they lived.

These doubts aside, I’ve felt so much of a resistance to going to church, reading my bible, praying, or just having anything at all to do with God. I feel like I’m going to hell. But aside from that, I’ve felt better about myself, been more outgoing, and relaxed about life the last few months than I probably ever have. It’s really only the last few weeks that that has begun to change. I did not go to church this last Sunday, but I did go the previous five Sundays. I was glad to go. But I didn’t at any moment feel as though I belonged. And I’ve been reminded of how much I tried to belong a few years ago and never was really allowed to. I’ve had a lot of doubts creep in, old wounds resurface, and in general felt like I’m just a piece of crap. I don’t know how to feel close to God. I don’t know how to feel close to other Christians. I don’t know where I belong in the great realm of Christianity. And all of this bothers me a lot.

I do believe in God. I think it’s ridiculous to believe everything in this great big universe just came about of its own accord. But I do doubt a lot of what we Christians have been taught about God. I think, as in today, people in the past may have been wrong on their teachings and beliefs. How do we know that certain dreams weren’t just that and nothing else? How do we know that certain visions weren’t really episodes of drunkenness, hallucinations, and/or forms of mental illness? How do we know that Moses didn’t just take old stories (maybe of truth or myth) and add a bit of his own thinking to help rule the Israelites? How do we know that the good men and women of the Bible weren’t really as honest or noble as we’ve been taught they were? Perhaps their actions were more in the line of best intentions than clearly presenting what they knew as the truth. Along that line, I can’t help thinking about the Catholic view that Mary must have not died, but ascended into Heaven sometime late in her life. I see no proof at all to suggest that this is the case. There are no eye-witnesses, no one that wrote about it near the time that it supposedly happened, nothing. I think it’s likely that the Apostle John took Mary into hiding, to protect and to care for her, as Jesus wished, and she eventually died in obscurity. I think it’s likely that no one knew what happened to Mary. And embarrassed not to know this about the mother of the person for whom the church was founded, some early Christian leaders came to the conclusion that surely she must not have died such an ordinary and depressing death, but that something marvelous must have happened to her. And so, in their search for an answer as to what happened to Mary, they concluded she must have been ascended into Heaven to rule alongside her son. I have to say I like the notion of this idea, but I’d like to know where the proof is. It’s not enough for me that some priest a few hundred years after it supposedly happened wrote that that was what happened. He didn’t see it, so who did? How does he justify this answer? Apparently it’s supposed to be enough just that he said it, and so we just have to take him at his word, that’s the conclusion, case closed. I’m sorry, but it’s not enough for me.

I just feel as though everything is all mixed up. No two Christians ever seem to believe in the same thing. No one has any convincing answers. A lot of Christians act anything but Christian these days. It’s just all such a huge turn off for me, and something that I’ve increasingly wanted less and less to do with.

I could write more, but for now, I’ll leave it at this. I’m not feeling bad, really, or depressed, so please don’t anyone think that. I’m just frustrated because I’d like some answers and to be able to feel as though God actually is God.

On another note, I want to apologize for something else which I implied in a previous note a few months back, concerning friends. I think I was operating under the assumption that online friends weren’t as good as other types of friends. I’m sorry I ever thought that, and I’m sorry if I offended any of you for suggesting it. I’ve met some really great people online, and I’ve made some of the best, closest friendships I’ve ever had with some of you. You’re blessings from God, and that’s one thing I surely do not have doubts about. I thank God for each and every one of you.