I was pleased to see Petrina Fidel’s Sept. 9 letter, “Male circumcision an inappropriate act,” published in the Iowa State Daily. As director of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) of Iowa, I feel some history about the origins of circumcision in the United States is necessary for the understanding of how this procedure came to be the most common surgical procedure performed in the United States.

In the 1870s, masturbation was thought to cause many forms of disease and illness, both physical and emotional, and circumcision was used to punish little boys for masturbating. In Victorian America, where masturbation was considered sinful and unhealthy, circumcision was both the punishment and the supposed deterrent.

Throughout its history, circumcision has been justified as a preventative or cure for a variety of ailments and diseases.

Of course, circumcision cures nothing. As soon as one statement is found to be false, another problem is found to take its place. Dr. Jim Robertson notes, “There is a psychological need being satisfied by circumcision, which so far has not been articulated.”

In fact, the only thing circumcision prevents is full sexual satisfaction for the circumcised male and his partner. By removing the most erogenous (as well as only moving) part of the penis, circumcision renders the penis a diminished sensory organ.

Apart from the trauma of circumcision, the best reason not to circumcise is the foreskin itself. Once studied, one understands its importance and comes to find it unimaginable that it ever could have been devalued and cut off en masse.

When educating on the issue of circumcision, it is important to stress the remarkable value of the foreskin (and its importance to women) throughout the cycle of sexual life. The foreskin is a valuable sensory organ, like the eye, ear or hand. It contains more than 4,000 specialized nerve endings. This implies the greatest sexual sensation for both men and women.

Science is not always objective but is frequently culturally influenced, and some cultural practices are simply wrong. For example, most people recoil in horror at the idea of providing female genital mutilation “services” to parents of girls in order to “respect” this cruel and mistaken cultural and/or religious mutilation. Several western countries, including the United States, have outlawed genital mutilation of female minors.

Female genital mutilation is clearly wrong because it flagrantly violates the human right to bodily integrity of the girls who are its victims. But the sex of the baby or child is irrelevant. Human rights apply to all humans. And boys are human, too. We should not allow cultural acceptance of a procedure to outweigh medical knowledge.

International medical associations (and now American medical associations) deny any valid medical reasons for circumcising a healthy foreskin. It is not related to causes of any cancers or infectious diseases in men or in women.

While parents may legally consent to the procedure, they must realize that they are doing so for reasons of cultural preference, not for the health interests of their child. Moreover, personal choice is lost when parental choice is given precedence.

Carolyn Reinhold

Director

NOCIRC of Iowa