Is the non-therapeutic circumcision
of infant boys morally permissible?
You may have the idea that the foreskin of the penis is nothing but a
disease-incubating, hard-to-clean nuisance, my moral points notwithstanding. But
you’d be wrong. The foreskin serves more than one important function.
First, it protects the soft, moist, and sexually-sensitive glans penis from
environmental degradation. The “head” of a circumcised penis, in contrast,
becomes leathery and tough, as well as desensitized, as it rubs against clothing
and other foreign elements year after year. Second, it serves a sexual function
as well.
The nerve endings on a foreskin’s inner surface become exposed when the
penis is engorged—while the foreskin glides over the glans during
intercourse—increasing pleasure for both partners and making vaginal dryness
less likely a problem.
As one of my readers, citing
this study, relates:
The foreskin contains 85% of the sexually
receptive nerve endings of the penis. The “ridged band,” also known as the
“preputial sphincter” is the most sensitive part of an intact male’s body,
containing 20,000 meisner’s corpuscle nerve endings.
These are the nerve endings
that sense light touch, as in the anus or lips. They are also found in highly
concentrated patterns on the palms of our hands and soles of our feet.
[To get a
rough idea of the difference between an intact versus a circumcised penis on the
sensitivity dimension] compare the sensation of gently gliding a finger over
your palm versus the back of your hand.
In fact, circumcision first became a standard medical practice in the US, and
subsequently a mindless cultural habit, specifically as a means to combat
masturbation.
The aim, that is, was to reduce the sexual function of the
penis:
In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break
the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local
suffering to allow of the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the
prepuce [foreskin] is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and
probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed
under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit
we wish to eradicate.
(“On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy
and Early Childhood.” The Lancet, Vol. 1; 7 April 1860.)
We’ve moved past the folly of anti-masturbationism; we should move past the
cruelty of circumcision as well.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.
