BY JONNY WALKER, SPORTS ASSIGNMENT EDITOR
Parents who request a male infant circumcision, or the removal of the foreskin from a baby boy’s penis, are misguided at best. At worst, they have deliberately robbed their son of bodily autonomy.
When a doctor has not deemed circumcision medically necessary, let the boy grow into a man, and give that man input before permanently disfiguring his manhood.
About 60% of the time, parents in the United States choose to have their newborn son circumcised. That is one of the highest rates among industrialized nations.
Australia’s circumcision rate hovers around 20%. Western European nations like Germany have rates as low as 10%.
Regardless of whether the parents opt for circumcision, the parents’ right to choose whether their son will get to experience life with a foreskin is ingrained in our culture. That’s immoral.
Many cite religious, cultural or family-related reasons for circumcision. Few think to question the validity of long-held traditions.
Some do it under the guise that it’s best for their son’s health. A quick Google search would tell you infant circumcision reduces risks of HIV transmission and contraction, urinary tract infections and even penile cancer. Few think to question the practical extent of those so-called benefits.
Reduced transmission and contraction rates have only been observed in Africa. According to WHO data in 1998, America simultaneously had the highest circumcision rate and the highest HIV-transmission rate among developed countries.
Annually, about 10 men per million are diagnosed with penile cancer — virtually none of them are under 40. Urinary tract infections afflict just 1% of uncircumcised babies. Not often enough do parents weigh those low odds against the rate of complications, anywhere from 1.5% to 5%.
The kicker: The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes each of those supposed benefits but does not consider them great enough to recommend the procedure. That’s because the biggest risk factor for penile cancer and urinary tract infections is hygiene.
For the overwhelming majority of men, their circumcision status does not impact their health.
But parents who decided to have their infant son circumcised, believing it would prevent disease and potentially improve quality of life, were simply misguided.
The same can’t be said for parents who made the decision for religious, cultural or family-related reasons. Unfortunately, they are the majority — essentially peer-pressured into pseudo genital-mutilation.
These parents selfishly robbed a man of his ability to fully enjoy sex in the name of tradition.
Foreskin is not vestigial. It makes sex more pleasurable for both partners. It protects the head of the penis, especially during a boy’s formative years.
Let a man decide which parts of his body he should get to keep. Senselessly robbing someone of pleasure and autonomy should not be normalized.
