Jonathan A. Allan is Canada Research Chair in men and masculinities and a professor of English, drama, and creative writing and gender and women’s studies at Brandon University. His latest book is Uncut: A Cultural Analysis of the Foreskin.
Many parents, while awaiting the birth of their sons, have wondered about whether they will circumcise the penis. For many, this decision is straightforward; it is covenantal. For others, it is concise: A son should look like his dad. And yet, for others, the question is complicated, and the answers plentiful. Sometimes, parents do not agree on what to do. No matter what, it seems everyone has an opinion on the foreskin and if it should be kept.
A Google search of whether or not to circumcise your child yields tens of thousands of results. Alberta Health, for example, provides information answering the question, “Should I Keep My Son’s Penis Natural?” which encourages you to think about your feelings in hopes of guiding you toward a decision. Curiously, there is no mention of the Canadian Paediatric Society’s position on routine neonatal circumcision: “The CPS does not recommend routine circumcision of every newborn male.” So, what is an uncertain parent to do when the information is confusing, unclear and perhaps even overwhelming?
What if, instead of asking about “to cut or not to cut,” the question focused on what one is keeping when the foreskin remains intact?
The very question, “to cut or not to cut,” shows us how commonplace circumcision had become in Canadian society, where up until the 1980s, nearly every other man was circumcised. By the 1990s, circumcision rates had declined precipitously as most provincial health care programs defunded it (Manitoba continues to provide medically-indicated neonatal circumcision during the first four weeks). And while circumcision is still considered “normal” in some places, such as the United States (where, incidentally, the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that “health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns”), the reality is that globally the majority of penises are intact. Thus, when people speak of the “ugly” foreskin, that is less a global value and more about the values of a particular culture in a specific moment – indeed, one paragon of male beauty, Michelangelo’s David, is intact.
Circumcision as a religious rite is different from circumcision as an aesthetic or social tradition. Wanting a boy to look like his father may well be one reason to be circumcised (or remain intact), but what is both gained and lost? Fearing that a boy may not look like the other boys in the locker room is indeed a real fear for some parents, but do parents know that circumcised penises are now outliers in the Canadian context? Parents want to make the right decision and ensure their boys “fit in” to avoid bullying and teasing, which of course is noble, but what is the right decision? Boys and men today are more likely to see foreskins in the locker room.
Parents who choose to circumcise their children for secular reasons also cite the medical or hygienic benefits of circumcision – even as few medical associations admit the health benefits are sufficient to recommend circumcision. The data here are often as confusing. Studies conducted in one context might not translate to another context.
Parents may be uneasy imagining the eventual sexual lives of their newborn sons, but the question of whether the circumcised penis feels more or less than the intact penis is hotly debated. The consensus in scientific literature is that there is little to no difference; however, sex manuals suggest otherwise.
Increasingly, activists and regular folks alike are speaking out against circumcision. Anti-circumcision activists – “Intactivists” – have become regular participants at Pride parades, for example, and also protest outside meetings of the American Urological Association or on street corners, holding placards reminding people that boys do not consent to circumcision. Some men have spoken passionately about their regret, disappointment and pain because of the decision their parents made years ago. The goal is to raise awareness that the perceived “snip” is not all that simple and that circumcision itself can be harmful to male well-being. The penis has been surgically altered, which can have an impact on sexuality, mental health and wellness, and sense of identity. “His body, his choice” becomes critical to this movement, which increasingly focuses on genital autonomy for all people.
The foreskin and whether or not to keep the penis natural is a question that many parents are faced with, and one that is charged with personal, cultural and sexual concerns about what it means to be a boy and a man.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Manitoba provides routine neonatal circumcision during the first four weeks. It covers medically-indicated neonatal circumcision. This version has been updated.