Circumcision

[MiserereNobis]

Why is it an American tradition? Is there a religious reason for this? I assume there is, since circumcision was the sign of the covenant for Jews, but I'm not sure how protestants (the American religion) understand or apply that.

Is there or has there been a Mormon position on circumcision?

In Europe, it is almost unheard of, which I think relates to Europe's background as a Catholic area.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why is it an American tradition? Is there a religious reason for this? I assume there is, since circumcision was the sign of the covenant for Jews, but I'm not sure how protestants (the American religion) understand or apply that.

Is there or has there been a Mormon position on circumcision?

In Europe, it is almost unheard of, which I think relates to Europe's background as a Catholic area.

 

The Mormon position is that the law of circumcision under Moses was removed with the coming of Christ. In fact a Book of Mormon verse explicitly states that, but I’m not inclined to look it up right now. 

Beyond that, the Church takes no position on circumcision, though I personally wish more Mormon parents would forego it. I regard it as unnecessary cosmetic surgery, and having it performed on newborns is ethically questionable due to the impossibility of informed consent. 

Why is it still so common in the States? I can only explain it as the inertia of custom and tradition. One by one, the reasons for it have been discredited over the years, then others have arisen to take their place and have in turn been discredited. It has thus been characterized as a cure in search of a problem. 

Edited to add: Here is that Book of Mormon passage.

Quote

Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

— Mormon 8:8, emphasis mine

Edited November 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm time-poor owing to work right now, but there are some excellent resources on the internet that trace the history of the practice if you want to do your own searching. As a medical procedure, it's pretty much unique to the Anglo-sphere, beginning in Victorian England and spreading to some of the colonies and former colonies. It has nothing to do with Judaism, though interestingly one of its most ardent proponents in the US was Dr Kellogg, the famous Adventist and breakfast cereal populiser.

In short, medical infant circumcision was designed to reduce sexual pleasure, first as a deterrent to masturbation but then as a check on too much pleasure in adulthood. All of the early literature, including Kellogg's, is frank in admitting this. Interestingly, the practice has fallen out of favour most places that adopted it (UK, Canada, NZ, most Australian states), but there seems to be something in the US psyche that can't let go of it. This is clearly in the realm of psychology, not history, though.

I find it fascinating that much of the developed world is now appalled by the removal of any healthy genital tissue from a female minor, but many Americans and some others just don't think boys should have this same right. As one who has lived both in and outside the US, I have to say that the practice appears as barbaric to me as Burmese neck stretching, Mongolian head-binding or African scarification.

By the way, the history of Jewish circumcision is pretty interesting itself. The Biblical practice involved only the removal of the preputial sphincter (the ring of muscle that creates the terminal pucker -- and the only penile skin that is literally 'fore'). The complete denuding of the glans in Judaism only began around the second century AD and was a Rabbinic  reaction to Hellinising Jews hiding their status by using hair (or something similar) to tie their foreskins closed in public places so that they didn't appear circumcised.

One of the things that makes me sad is that Utah is currently the only state in the American West where circumcision is still prevalent. When I've discussed this with LDS American friends, they've tended to fall back on the excuse that it's in the Bible and so must be commanded/good/something. I then wonder if they've read the New Testament or the Book of Mormon. (I certainly don't expect most people to understand that what is called circumcision today wasn't even practised in Biblical times.)

Edited November 18, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

Our advice received years ago (in Utah) was the boys would think there was something wrong with themselves for being different from Daddy.  That it would make no difference in terms of pleasure.  Pain was very much downplayed as well as any potential problems.  They didn't claim there would be an issue with cleanliness but they didn't come right out and say it wouldn't be a problem.  Made it sound more complicated without it.  Back then no internet and I trusted doctors to tell me the whole story more.  Would do things differently now.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Calm

[rchorse]

We have 3 boys 8, 6, and 3. None are circumcised, but all were born in Utah. I was kind of surprised at the reactions of the doctors and nurses when we said we didn't want them circumcised. With one exception, they all treated us as odd and seemed to think we were making a mistake. Many people told us it would be hard to keep them clean and that they would probably have frequent infections. Another comment was that they may get made fun of for being different. None of it has turned out to be true.

We figured that they could always get themselves circumcised later if they wanted. But if we made the decision for them as infants, there was no going back.

[MiserereNobis]

So it sounds like there is a cultural aspect to it in Utah, but nothing official from the LDS church. The Catholic Church teaches that there is no religious reason for circumcision. There is a strong anti-circumcision stance among some Catholics based on some teachings about non-medically necessary bodily mutilations, but the Church itself has not really made an official statement in 600 years.

[Calm]

Had nothing to do with the Church.  Strictly medical establishment.

[Gray]

We didn't circumcise our son - we figured we'd leave that choice to him when he's an adult.

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So it sounds like there is a cultural aspect to it in Utah, but nothing official from the LDS church. The Catholic Church teaches that there is no religious reason for circumcision. There is a strong anti-circumcision stance among some Catholics based on some teachings about non-medically necessary bodily mutilations, but the Church itself has not really made an official statement in 600 years.

I once knew a mohel who did pretty will with this -- $25/bris plus tips.

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So it sounds like there is a cultural aspect to it in Utah, but nothing official from the LDS church. The Catholic Church teaches that there is no religious reason for circumcision. There is a strong anti-circumcision stance among some Catholics based on some teachings about non-medically necessary bodily mutilations, but the Church itself has not really made an official statement in 600 years.

The only official LDS position is the passage I quoted from the Book of Mormon, from which may be drawn the inference that there is no theological justification for carrying on the practice of circumcision today. Beyond that, the Church takes no position pro or con.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

We didn't circumcise our son - we figured we'd leave that choice to him when he's an adult.

Which, in my view, is the only ethically sound position to take.

[bluebell]

We circumcized our sons because my mother was a home health nurse and had a number of older (70+) men who had to be circumcized while under her care (due to different health problems) and both the health problems and the recovery from surgery for them was horrible.  I just didn't see a reason to chance any of that.

Despite it being an ethically unsound position.  

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which, in my view, is the only ethically sound position to take.

Yup. Non-essential (mainly) cosmetic surgeries should wait until a person is old enough to consent.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We circumcized our sons because my mother was a home health nurse and had a number of older (70+) men who had to be circumcized while under her care (due to different health problems) and both the health problems and the recovery from surgery for them was horrible.  I just didn't see a reason to chance any of that.

Despite it being an ethically unsound position.  

There are some public health reasons to circumcise. In countries where there is an AIDS epidemic, it can cut down the rate of infection. That doesn't mean unprotected sex becomes safe, but it's like Russian roulette with an extra empty cylinder on the revolver. Over the long run fewer people will die.

[rongo]

All three of our sons are circumcised --- out of cultural and health reasons, not religious. 

Our oldest was born on Memorial Day, and our pediatrician was off. The one on duty who was supposed to do it sent word through a nurse that he couldn't do it because our newborn son had a severe "abnormality." As new parents with no experience, this was not what we wanted to hear about our newborn son!

At his first checkup with out pediatrician, he told us he was completely normal, and speculated that the doctor just wanted to get out of there. Pretty rotten to tell new parents that as an excuse, though . . . He circumcised him there in the office, and since he was eight days old, we joke that he is Jewish . . .  

[Rivers]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Beyond that, the Church takes no position on circumcision, though I personally wish more Mormon parents would forego it. I regard it as unnecessary cosmetic surgery, and having it performed on newborns is ethically questionable due to the impossibility of informed consent. 

 

I used to think circumcision was a good idea.  And then I saw the medical bill  for it when my son had it done to him.  To my utter disappointment, the insurance didn't even cover it.  No longer a fan of circumcision.

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

I used to think circumcision was a good idea.  And then I saw the medical bill  for it when my son had it done to him.  To my utter disappointment, the insurance didn't even cover it.  No longer a fan of circumcision.

 

That right there may tell a discerning reader anything s/he needs to know about circumcision.  If insurance won't cover it, there's a good likelihood it isn't as necessary, medically speaking, as some might have us believe.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

There are some public health reasons to circumcise. In countries where there is an AIDS epidemic, it can cut down the rate of infection. That doesn't mean unprotected sex becomes safe, but it's like Russian roulette with an extra empty cylinder on the revolver. Over the long run fewer people will die.

In developed countries where neonatal circumcision is not the norm -- such as Europe, the UK, most of the world outside the United States, for that matter -- there has been no such increase in the incidence of AIDS linked to lack of circumcision. Which makes me question the correlation. There have been a lot of flawed studies over the years purporting to support circumcision. This may be yet another.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If insurance won't cover it, there's a good likelihood it isn't as necessary, medically speaking, as some might have us believe.

Where I live, our hospitals don't even perform circumcisions. We have a number of migrant families in our ward for whom this is a point of cultural contention, but they just end up taking their sons 'back home' for this procedure.* I've often thought that if one was inclined towards routine circumcision, spending time around these boys post-surgery would almost certainly cure that. Infants, like dead men, tell no tales, but the young men in our ward often complain for years of the extreme discomfort they experience from having internal, nerve-rich, erogenous tissue turned into external tissue that rubs against clothing and towels, is exposed to heat and cold, etc. The complaints only subside as their bodies compensate by turning what was once mucus membrane into a thick layer of skin in order to dull sensation, but at least one of my former young men, now in his 20s, says that he still finds his condition physically irritating -- though he's glad he hasn't at least lost all sensation.

-----

*Ironically, if they did the same thing for their daughters, they would face criminal charges upon returning.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

All three of our sons are circumcised --- out of cultural and health reasons, not religious. 

 

What are the health reasons, if I may ask?

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What are the health reasons, if I may ask?

The CDC actually recommends circumcision of infant males for health reasons.  

Medical Conditions That Male Circumcision Protects Against Over the Lifetime

• Urinary tract infection

• Penile inflammation, for example, balanitis, balanoposthitis, lichen sclerosus

• Candidiasis

• Phimosis and paraphimosis

• Inferior hygiene

• Sexually transmitted infections including high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes simplex virus (HSV), trichomoniasis, mycoplasma, syphilis, chancroid, and HIV

• Physical injuries to the foreskin, including coital injuries

• Cancers of the penis, prostate, and cervix

Sources: CDC technical review² and draft policy recommendations,³ AAP review⁵ and infant MC policy statement,⁴ risk-benefit analyses by Morris et al.^7–9

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The CDC actually recommends circumcision of infant males for health reasons.  

Medical Conditions That Male Circumcision Protects Against Over the Lifetime

• Urinary tract infection

• Penile inflammation, for example, balanitis, balanoposthitis, lichen sclerosus

• Candidiasis

• Phimosis and paraphimosis

• Inferior hygiene

• Sexually transmitted infections including high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes simplex virus (HSV), trichomoniasis, mycoplasma, syphilis, chancroid, and HIV

• Physical injuries to the foreskin, including coital injuries

• Cancers of the penis, prostate, and cervix

Sources: CDC technical review² and draft policy recommendations,³ AAP review⁵ and infant MC policy statement,⁴ risk-benefit analyses by Morris et al.^7–9

Fair enough.  Generally, far be it from me to question most any of the CDC's expertise or wisdom.  However, I'd like to know what the incidence of any of any of these conditions is and how directly traceable non-circumcision is to any of them (a correlation is not a cause): The less prevalent they are, and/or the less directly traceable any of them is to non-circumcision, the more the law of diminishing returns applies.  Is circumcision the equivalent of swatting a fly with a sledgehammer?

[rongo]

Thanks, bluebell!

In addition to the specifics she gave, it just makes general sense to me that lack of a foreskin means that pathogens and larger objects can't be trapped under it. That would seem to be beneficial in a lot of ways.

Truth be told, though, it is mostly cultural. I am circumcised, my dad was, etc. Maybe that's one of those "cutting the ends of the roast off" things, but it is no less real. 

[Daniel2]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Beyond that, the Church takes no position on circumcision, though I personally wish more Mormon parents would forego it. I regard it as unnecessary cosmetic surgery, and having it performed on newborns is ethically questionable due to the impossibility of informed consent. 

Why is it still so common in the States? I can only explain it as the inertia of custom and tradition. One by one, the reasons for it have been discredited over the years, then others have arisen to take their place and have in turn been discredited. It has thus been characterized as a cure in search of a problem. 

Great post, Scott!!! I wanted to take advantage of an opportunity to acknowledge we completely agree on something. 

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

We didn't circumcise our son - we figured we'd leave that choice to him when he's an adult.

Same.