Foreskin Man and Other Threats to Our Freedoms

How the Circumcision Ban Could Hurt Us All

Years ago, when my brother, Chet, was a student at Humboldt State University, I met his roommate. Don had long wavy hair and a full blond beard. He also had deep pain and resentment over his parents' decision to circumcisize him as an infant. He felt maimed and violated by their choice. Don was an early advocate of the anti-circumcision movement.

It is men like Don who are leading the charge to keep all boys in San Francisco from being “mutilated” until they are eighteen and can choose circumcision for themselves. They have successfully secured enough signatures to place the Male Genital Mutilation Bill on the November 11th ballet. The bill makes no exception for religious practices and is in direct violation of Jewish and Muslim traditions.

The “Intactivist” movement is bringing together a series of unlikely coalitions. The anti-circumcision crowd who tend to be free-speech, anti-government activists like my brother’s friend Don are finding themselves in bed with the anti-choice crowd who presumably argue “we shouldn’t kill babies before they are born or mutilate boys after.” “Intactivists” are also finding a home with those who harbor anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim sentiment.

A proposed ban on circumcision can be perceived as an assault on religious freedom. For Muslims, male circumcision is considered a way to follow the precepts of the Prophet Mohammed. Circumcision is a requirement of Jewish law dating back to Abraham in the Book of Genesis. According to a recent article in the New York Times, circumcision is more than just a religious issue. “Beyond the biblical, there are emotional connections: checking for circumcision was one of the ways Jewish children could be culled from their peers by Nazis and the czar’s armies.”

Rabbi Ari Mark Cartun of Etz Chayim in Palo Alto has deep concerns. “I want to continue to live in a free country, one that allows me to observe my religion in the way I chose,” he says. 

So does Samina Sundas, a Palo Alto resident and the Founding Executive Director of the American Muslim Voice Foundation. As an American, Samina too simply wants to be free to practice her religion as she sees fit. “This country is founded on religious freedom and I want to be sure we can get back to the ideals that we started from.

In some ways this all may be a moot point. Circumcision has lost significant ground over the past decade. Now, reports estimate only 30 percent of American boys are circumcisized versus over two-thirds of boys in the 1980s and 1990s.

This drop flies in the face of the latest news about the benefits of circumcision and HIV. According to a study in 2007, circumcision significantly reduces the spread of HIV among heterosexuals. The results were so encouraging that the World Health Organization endorsed male circumcision as “an important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired H.I.V.”

Male circumcision also reduces the risk of cervical cancer in women.  Human papilloma virus, or HPV, is the main cause of cervical cancer and genital warts. Uncircumsized men are significantly more likely to carry HPV  than their circumcised counterparts. It’s no wonder circumcision advocates say it is a pro-woman policy.

It would all be so sad if it wasn’t also a little funny. The latest comic book hero is Foreskin Man who bears a striking resemblance to Don sans the beard. I don’t imagine Marvel will be rushing to create a summer blockbuster with him as a hero. They can’t even get a green lamp off the ground these days. But the anti-semitism is very real in the comic strip. Monster Mohel is the villan out to harm “innocent boys.” A mohel is a Jewish man who performs a circumcision on a baby boy eight days after he is born in a Jewish ceremony called the Bris Mihal. It’s no wonder the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement against Foreskin Man.

It might seem obvious circumcision is the best choice for male children given the latest health information. However, there are many who disagree, saying a child is born perfect and should not be “mutilated.”  "We abhor the idea for girls," “Intactivist” argue. "Why do it to boys?" 

For now,  the decision to circumcise a male child is still a private choice that rests with parents. But as Samina Sundas asks, “If one city passes this resolution, what is keeping other cities from following suit?” 

With the anti-choice, anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-woman subtext behind the anti-circumcision ban, it is surprising a city as progressive as San Francisco would even consider putting this issue on the ballot. Whatever the outcome, the good news is Our Fair City is not likely to fall prey to the whims of a small faction with an agenda. Right?

Stan Barnes July 31, 2011 at 03:26 AM
"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention." ~ The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Stan Barnes July 31, 2011 at 03:31 AM
One of the characteristics of cultures that cut the genitals of children is devaluing the parts they cut off. The attitude of many Americans about normal intact male genitals is similar to the attitude of many Africans about normal intact female genitals. "Medical support for routine circumcision has rested on the presumption that the foreskin is trivial, as one physician quipped, just a few millimeters of skin." ~ David Gollaher
Hugh7 July 31, 2011 at 07:52 AM
I would have thought a lawyer would know that "mayhem" is the crime of intentionally maiming another - so it is Dr Mutilator, Monster Mohel, Ghinjo and Githnji who plan mayhem, on children. (It is only custom that keeps infant circumcision from being illegal on this basis already.) FSM - like many a superhero before him - knocks some teeth out. Encourages murder? Not in the ones I saw. Nor is rescue from the maimers kidnapping, when the mother approves.
Judy August 29, 2011 at 04:22 PM
Cutting off any part of a child's body should be illegal. Circumcision should have been removed from our vocabulary when soap and running water became available to Americans. The thought that this procedure was done without anesthetic in hospitals horrifies me.
Locuta de Bjorg August 30, 2011 at 04:17 AM
Even if it is done WITH anesthetic in hospitals it is unethical and completely unacceptable! Medical practitioners have no business being in the non-theraputic/cosmetic genital cutting on children business... but as long as we have for-profit medical care, there will be a financial incentive for them to keep doing it.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »