By Lillian Dell’Aquila Cannon
As the mother of four young children and baby store owner in a high-circumcision area, I have the opportunity to see a fair amount of infant penises. I have noticed that “loose” circumcisions are becoming more common. What does that mean?
In cutting off the foreskin, the doctor can sometimes control how much foreskin is removed, though it is often hard to do this as the newborn penis is so tiny and it cannot be known how it will grow during puberty. In the mid-20th century, most American circumcisions were very tight – they removed most or all of the mobile skin, thus completely exposing the glans. This produced the desired look and “ease of cleaning”as there was no foreskin left to clean under; this was thought to be a benefit as they used to think you had to clean under the foreskin from birth. We know that this is a terrible idea as the infant foreskin is adhered to the glans with the same type of tissue that adheres nails to their nail beds. Forcing the foreskin back to clean under it causes such immediate problems as enormous pain, scarring, and infection.
Tight circumcisions also create long-term problems, chief among them that there would not be enough skin remaining to support full erection. This causes pain when erect; shiny, tight skin; and sometimes even splitting of the shaft skin when fully erect. It usually also causes pain for the female partner, as the lack of mobile skin forces sex to be all friction against the vaginal introitus. (This is not the way sex is supposed to be – the intact penis moves inside its own foreskin, thus providing a rolling, gliding, frictionless pleasure for the woman.) It also, of course, destroys the gliding action of the foreskin’s ridged band over the head and shaft of the penis, which is a source of tremendous pleasure for the man.
Perhaps because they became aware of these problems, in recent years some doctors have begun doing loose circumcisions. They “only” remove a small amount of the foreskin, and some of these babies don’t even look circumcised at first glance. Most of the glans is covered, so the average American who has never seen an intact penis would think that the baby had not been circumcised. To a trained eye, however, the circumcision is obvious because the foreskin flares out at the end instead of the natural taper. Because the ridged band and dartos muscle at the end of the foreskin is removed, the foreskin cannot stay closed on its own, and thus the baby is susceptible to debris collecting under the foreskin, and often suffers from adhesions, where the foreskin remnants try to readhere to the glans. Modern treatment says to ignore these adhesions, but because of the cultural obsession to see the glans, doctors often rip these open during well-baby visits, thus reopening the wound and causing even more pain.
So what is the outcome of a loose circumcision? You have a baby who “doesn’t even look circumcised,” who now does appear to “require” cleaning under the foreskin, but who has lost the amazing sensations of the dartos muscle and ridged bands. You’ve got the worst of all possible outcomes: it doesn’t produce the desired look of the naked glans, it needs special care and cleaning, but you don’t get the best pleasure. Totally stupid.
Why do doctors do it? Perhaps they think they are doing their patients a favor – acquiescing to the parental need for circumcision while preserving some of the functionality. This idea is misguided; the doctors should have the courage of their conviction and just refuse to do them. If the doctor thinks that circumcision is useful because it would “lower the chance of acquiring HIV” or “require less care” or “prevent UTIs,” then they need to explain how leaving most of the mobile skin on the penis serves those ends. The foreskin is still mainly there, minus the most sexually pleasurable part: if it is such a hotbed of disease, then they have not given that baby all the “protection” they could. They are cowards.
Even worse is what happens when the circumcision heals and the parents see the baby’s penis: “He doesn’t even look circumcised.” All that money spent, the baby’s pain, the hassle of caring for the wound, and he doesn’t match Daddy. Because the compulsion to have the baby circumcised arises from a confluence of social, cultural and psychological factors, many parents are simply not satisfied. In my time reading and arguing circumcision in online parenting fora, I have seen parents have their babies re-circumcised in order to produce the desired look of exposed glans. This is almost always a terrible idea, as it will not be easy to make the baby look circumcised without removing all the skin necessary to cover the penis, even when flaccid. Babies undergoing repeat circumcisions often suffer buried penis and degloving of the entire shaft because they simply don’t have enough skin left to cover their penises. One case I will never be able to forget was a woman on BabyCenter who had her son recircumcised twice, for a total of three circumcisions. Of course the baby required reconstructive surgery and will likely never have a normal sex life, even by the American standard of “normal” sex life (needing artificial lube, uncomfortable friction for the woman, difficulty managing the level of the male’s arousal, etc.) It was appalling and disgusting, especially considering everyone on the debate board, pro-circs included, begged her not to do it.
This begs the anthropological question: will such loose circumcisions satisfy American parents? What completes the ritual of circumcision? Is it just cutting the penis, or does the glans have to be fully exposed to satisfy the parents? In the case of the woman from BabyCenter, I believe her compulsion was deep and psycho-sexual, to the point of pathological. My readers from non-circumcising countries are likely now thoroughly disgusted: to them, as to the ancient Greeks who would not let circumcised Jews compete in the nude Olympics, seeing the glans only happens during sexual encounters, and thus is perverted and abhorrent to desire in a baby. The parents who are satisfied with a loose circumcision are likely more influenced by the ritual and traditional aspect of being marked in the flesh like Daddy was. Perhaps our doctors should start recommending a ritual nick of the foreskin to satisfy these parents? Oh wait… that would be unethical, like it was for the girls, right?
Any way it is done, routine infant circumcision is wrong: it destroys the perfect natural functioning of the penis, offers no benefits, and arises from psycho-sexual-cultural compulsions, not a medical need. Doctors, don’t do loose circumcisions, don’t do tight circumcisions, don’t do them at all. The infant is your patient, and he has not consented.