Lucy E. Waldman, CNM
Tsvi Bisk – The Case for Circumcision
Over the past several years (and most recently in the comment section of the New York Times) the Jewish custom of male circumcision, in which the foreskin of the penis is removed, has been increasingly compared to female circumcision, in which the clitoris and sometimes the labia are removed, and condemned as morally equivalent examples of genital mutilation. This comparison demonstrates an abysmal ignorance of anatomy. The clitoris is analogous to the penis and the labia to the scrotum which is certainly not removed in male circumcision. The foreskin is comparable to the clitoral hood which is sometimes removed surgically in women in order to enhance sexual pleasure.
And while no international organization recommends and promotes female circumcision, male circumcision is one of the primary weapons against HIV/AIDS in Africa and is promoted by the World Health Organization and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS). Male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by approximately 60% and provides men with a life-long mitigating safeguard against HIV as well as other sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis and gonorrhea.
Given its preventive health benefits, infant male circumcision should be considered on a par with infant and childhood vaccinations. According to Brian Morris, professor of molecular medical science at the University of Sydney in Australia “The World Health Organization, UNAIDS and others have done projections estimating the millions of lives that will be saved by implementation of circumcision, which has been equated to an effective vaccine.”
Female circumcision, on the other hand, increases the risk of HIV transmission, not to mention other diseases and appalling physical ailments. It also deprives women of sexual pleasure, destroys their self-esteem and turns them into a utilitarian vessel of patriarchal societies. Some claim male circumcision lessens a man’s sexual sensitivity. Professor Morris disagrees: “… the claims that male circumcision somehow leads to impaired sexual function, sensitivity, sensation during arousal or satisfaction has been disproven by just about every good research study.”
One might, of course, object to the procedure on aesthetic grounds (quite legitimate), but as Roger Collier writes in the Canadian Medical Association Journal “…women seem to favor the appearance of circumcised penises. In one survey, for example, 90% of women said circumcised penises look better, 92% said they were cleaner and 85% said they were more pleasant to touch”. This explains the increase in voluntary adult circumcisions in America. Girls just want to have fun and boys just want to get lucky.
One could also adopt a position that, despite all of the above, the procedure should ultimately be a decision made volitionally by an adult and not imposed on a defenseless infant. This is a serious proposition carrying much moral weight. But personally, having met men circumcised as adults, I am quite happy that my parents made the decision for me – just as they did for my smallpox and polio vaccinations.
Male circumcision is no more morally abhorrent than a nose-job. So if you want to call nose-jobs ‘facial mutilation’ then I will allow that you can describe the removal of the male foreskin ‘genital mutilation’. The difference is that circumcision is a much less painful, complicated and dangerous procedure than a nose-job and much more beneficial health-wise.
Jews do not practice circumcision for any of the health reasons cited above; it is simply our tribal custom (as it is for other tribes around the world – including Muslims). But since the custom is not detrimental to the health of the child and indeed even beneficial to the long term health of the child there is no reason for Jews to be on the defensive regarding the practice.
Tsvi Bisk is author of The Suicide of the Jews
