Celebrating Heathen
Sons
By: A. J.
Ahlberg-Venezia; MA
©2001
This article originally
appeared in Idduna #49
(Reprinted with the
authoress’ permission)
“I will do you good”
(relief on Egyptian tomb, circa 2300
BCE)
Non-religious hospital
circumcision is a practice which has received strong publicity in the last
decade. One of the decisions facing parents of sons is whether or not to
circumcise. This is a sensitive topic. This essay was first published in Idduna
for a different readership; therefore I have deleted names of men who shared
their circumcision stories with me—stories which were intended for that issue
and audience.
This essay is neither a
criticism of parents who have chosen circumcision nor an attempt to make men
feel maimed. Rather, this material is presented so that future parents can make
an informed choice about a procedure that was not practiced among our
ancestors. Intactivism is a political stance, but could it become a religious
statement for Heathens?
By the sixteenth week
of pregnancy, the unborn child can detect light and dark. By the eighth month
of pregnancy, if a mother exposes her bare belly to full sunlight, Sunna
appears to the baby as a golden haze through the mother’s uterine wall. Babies
respond in utero to light. Our advanced technologies are discovering
that the “secret life of the unborn child” is much more complex and active than
previously believed. In 1971, The American Academy of Pediatrics took the
official position that no medical grounds for circumcision existed; this
decision was retracted in 1985 but then reaffirmed in 1999. The Pediatric
Urologists Association in 1975 agreed that circumcision should not be routinely
performed. Yet every 25 seconds, a male infant is circumcised in America.
The priapic artwork of
other cultures (Japan, for example) is so detailed that the male is
unmistakably intact, even in a Frey-like state of attention. I looked closely
at artwork of the Norse gods, hoping to find a clearly intact hammer. It’s been
suggested that most paintings of the Germanic gods were done during a period of
modesty, so privates were generally obscured. That the gods and goddesses were
clothed is a reflection of the climate and the style of more primitive pagan artwork.
The Middle Ages and Renaissance featured works depicting Jesus’s circumcision.
This may have served to sanctify the practice among the population. Renaissance
artwork in general also featured circumcised males, and this may have reflected
the norms of the upper class—towards which most upwardly mobile persons strove.
Today, the majority of medical textbooks used in the United States feature
circumcised hammers. This, too, serves to reinforce circumcision as the norm.
Egyptian artwork at least 2000 years old depicts scenes of male circumcision. An Egyptian tomb is Sakkara, dating between 2423 and 2262 BCE, contains a relief on a door-jamb of a tomb of two boys being circumcised with crude stone instruments. According to the translation, the operator is saying, “I will do you good.”
“Speculation also
abounds as to with which people the practice originated. It is known that
circumcision has been practiced among peoples of Semitic origins—specifically
the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Moslems, as well as
many tribes in Africa, Australia, the South Sea Islands, and sporadically among
the Indian tribes of North and South America.” While Semitic today is commonly
equated with Judaism, it is used in this context to describe a people sharing
common ancestry.
In America, by the end
of the nineteenth century, Jewish immigration rose substantially. This resulted
in a growing awareness of circumcision. According to Romberg, many Jews entered
the medical profession, and several Jewish hospitals were established. This is
not to suggest that a conspiracy existed among Jewish physicians to circumcise
Gentiles (charges of anti-Semitism are routinely leveled against intactivists).
Yet the procedure is a religious edict in two of the three Abrahamic
religions—and the term “Gentile” may have originally referred to an
uncircumcised male (Reimer-Møller, pers. corr.). The medical literature of the
time may have provided validation of their religious practice, which in turn
many have helped foster its standardization in hospitals. In large part,
however, the shift from midwife-attended homebirth to hospital birth exposed
babies to the practice. In 1900, less than 5% of births were in hospitals; by
1930, that figure had climbed to nearly 75%. As a result, the circumcision rate
had climbed sharply to 50%. Kellogg (the cornflake tycoon) endorsed
circumcision for the salutary effect it would have on the infant. In his
opinion, circumcision would prevent boys’ later indulgence in the “solitary vice”.
And in fact, in 1928 the Journal of the American Medical Association had
officially endorsed circumcision as a cure for the “solitary vice”.
Freud, a Jewish
neurologist, was an early critic of circumcision. He believed it to be both a
relic of an earlier castration rite and a source of later anxiety. It has been
argued elsewhere that circumcision became a substitute for child sacrifice
(particularly the first born son) or an act designed to propitiate the goddess
upon marriage (see Maccoby). Today, within Reformist Judaism, some parents are
rejecting the practice. Instead, the boy is circumcised symbolically by having
the attendant circumciser make a small cut on the cloth beneath the baby at the
point of ritual when the infant would have been cut. Circumcision is codified
in one of the earlier documents of the sacred Torah, so this is a particularly
brave stance for Jewish parents to assume.
Abundant literature is available which describes the hospital procedure in detail, which I omit here (but invite you to do your own research). The tools used are forceps, probe, scalpel, Gomco or Mogen clamp or Plastibell device and ring. The infant is strapped spread-eagle to a cradleboard to minimize struggling. Because the foreskin is still attached to the glans at birth, it must be torn back to perform the procedure. The procedure has been likened to slicing a banana peel off with a scalpel, with a straight down cut and then a circumferential cut. Anesthesia is not used (although within Judaism, the infant is given a wine-soaked cloth to suck on first). Aterwards, infants passurine painfully over the raw wound until it heals.
The reasons given in support of the procedure is that a circumcised hammer is more cosmetically pleasing and lacks a strong male scent or normal discharge. This attitude can be traced to the class division of Victorian society, particularly with the arrival of foreigners—the “unwashed masses”. Dirt was equated with immorality; the natural discharge of the intact male was perceived as dirty and by extension, immoral.
Critics of circumcision
argue that one function of the foreskin is to produce pheromones, some of which
signal to other males their relation to one another. It is believed to be an
evolutionary adaptation, perhaps to strengthen fraternal and filial bonds. This
function is destroyed by genital cutting. In the past, more family members
shared a smaller living space; this pheromonal proximity may have helped foster
family ties. The role of foreskins on pheromones is debated; some research is
skeptical of the link. However, claims to the contrary are promoted by
proponents of circumcision. It’s worth remembering the as recently as 1949
neurologist Egas Moniz shared the Nobel Prize in medicine for pioneering the
frontal lobotomy, supporting my contention that questioning orthodox procedures
can be a good thing. Please keep an open mind, do your own research, and
consider the sources when evaluating claims.
Men who are circumcised are more likely to favor it for their sons, but their wives are more likely to oppose it. Overwhelmingly, fathers said that they did not want their son to look different. Just 23% if intact men have their sons circumcised as opposed to 90% of circumcised men. This topic should be discussed well before the birth, as it can be a source of conflict.
One argument in favor
of circumcision asserts that intact boys will suffer distress from looking
different in the locker room. Yet Goldman notes that sometimes it is the
circumcised boys who become deeply distressed upon learning what has been done
to them. In those cases, the intact boys had been educated by their parents
about the procedure and were able to explain this to their circumcised friends.
They felt very positive about their intact state. Clearly, communication
between parent(s) and son is vital.
The foreskin naturally
separates from the glans in the first one to three years of life. Active
manipulation to force the separation is unnecessary and potentially injurious.
An inflamed foreskin is usually caused by an ammonia-soaked diaper,
particularly disposable diapers which are designed to absorb more fluid than
cloth diapers and do not allow the skin to breathe. While cleanliness is a
frequent concern of parents, it really takes but a minute for your son to
practice good hygiene. Girls, after all, learn that each month their bodies
need extra time and attention. The following gentle remedies for an inflamed
foreskin are taken from The Male Herbal.
1.
Corstach Soak.
Dilute 1 tablespoon of cornstarch in ¼ cup waqrm water (optional: one drop
Lavender essential oil). Soak a clean cotton cloth in the solution, then apply
to foreskin for a minute or two. Repeat three times a day.
2.
Cider Vinegar.
Dilute ½ teaspoon apple cider vinegar in ¼ cup warm water (optional: one drop
Lavender essential oil). Apply as above.
3.
Adult men in
either state may also consider a soak. Fill a glass with a warm herbal infusion
(I know what you’re thinking—you’ll need a wide-mouth jar); submerge and soak
(buddies, too) for five to ten minutes, retracting your foreskin if you have
one. You could use Lavender (antibacterial), Yarrow (antiseptic/astringent),
Sage (astringent), and Chaparral (antifungal) infusions or a drop or two of
Lavender oil. All are recommended by Green. This is also helpful if you or your
partner ahs an infection so that you can avoid reinfecting each other.
It is believed that
infants’ nervous systems are too immature to feel pain—despite their screaming,
occational vomiting, and signs of shock during circumcision as well as later
changes in nursing behavior and affect (mothers especially notice the changes
in their infants after the procedure). Pain has been measured empirically on
newborns during circumcision. Neurobehavioral measurements, levels of stress
hormones and vital signs measured before and after the procedure demonstrate
convincingly that infants do feel pain during the procedure. In one account,
one mother shared her story: She agreed to circumcision and remained in the
room, understanding academically what was to be done to her son. She was,
however, unprepared for her son’s piercing screams; only at that moment did she
emotionally grasp exactly what was happening to her infant.
In the United States, a
persistent belief is that cervical cancer is lower among Jewish women. This is
an old study, and the results have not been replicated. The United States has
equal cervical cancer rates as Europe, where the majority of men are intact.
There is abundant medical literature dispelling this and other medical
justifications for circumcision. Space forbids discussing the studies here, but
the sources are *asterisked in the Book Hoard for interested readers.
“With the
assumption that 80% of the 1,608,326 male infants born in 1973, approximately
1,287,000 newborn foreskins were excised in that year…. With a physician’s fee
of $25 and an instrument fee of $15 per case, the cost of circumcising
1,287,700 babies would be approximately 51 million dollars”. And where do all
those foreskins go? A single foreskin no larger than a postage stamp produces
Dermograft, a bioengineered skin replacement product (see Gollaher). In an
adult male, that little piece of skin removed by circumcision would have grown
to about 15 square centimeters (about the size of a 3x5 card), or roughly a
third of his hammer. Instead, it is sold for a lucrative profit. Some cosmetic
companies use foreskins (and fetuses) in their product testing and cosmetics.
I’ve met people passionate about animal testing who are curiously unmoved about
circumcision and foreskin testing.
In America, two thirds of doctors surveyed presented as neutral to the parents, even when they were privately opposed to the practice. Some doctors who have spoken against the practice have been pressured by colleagues or administrators to remain silent. Economics appears to be the current deciding factor: circumcision rates are falling in large part because the procedure is no longer covered by some insurance plans. Likewise, my lay midwifery teacher noted that in Utah where she practices, women who are on public assistance are more likely to get episiotomies, as the final bill is itemized. In contrast, most midwives will charge a flat rate (Jeannine Parvati Baker, conversation).
Current literature is
exploring possible links between circumcision and medical problems and sexual
dysfunction in adulthood. Some intactivists believe that circumcision has a
damaging and permanent effect on trust and sexual intimacy. I empathize but
cannot accept such a reductionist perspective. Intactivist men have also
written at length about their feelings of anger and betrayal, particulary
towards their mothers. Some of their statements and claims verge on
mother-blaming, a pastime which needs no further encouragement. Still, I
strongly endorse their honest critique of the practice.
If you choose to
circumcise, please keep in mind that your son may question yhour decision and
ask you to justify it when he gets older. As a Heathen embracing workable
practices, were I to be blessed with a son, I would leave him intact for his
health, his bodily sovereignty, and as a symbolic and visible bond to his
ancestors. It would also be a conscious rejection of an Abrahamic custom
recently absorbed into modern medical practice. The news of my nephews’
circumcisions brought my heart to the ground. But I also, in this space, would
like to affirm my support and respect for whatever decision you as a parent
choose for your son.
Boyd, B. (1998). Circumcision Exposed: Rethinking a Medical and
Cultural Tradition. Freedom: Crossing Press.
Bryk, F. (1934). Circumcision in Man and Woman: Its History,
Psychology and Ethnology. New York: American Ethnological Press
Chamberlain, D. (1998). “Babies Don’t Feel Pain: A Century of Denial in
Medicine”. In Cyborg Babies: From Techno-Sex to Techno-Tots, R.
Davis-Floyd & J. Dumit, eds. New Your: Routledge
Denniston, G.; Hodges, F.; Milos, M. (1999). Male and Female
Circumcision: Medical, Legal and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice.
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Freud, S. (1966). Complete Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.
New York: Norton
Goldman, R. (1998). Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective. Boston:
Vanguard Publications
Gollaher, D. (2000). Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most
Controversial Surgery.* New York: Basic Books
Green, J. (1991). The Male Herbal. Freedom: Crossing Press
Koso-Thomas, O. (1987). The Circumcision of Woman: A Strategy for
Eradication. New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd.
Maccoby, H. (1982). The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the
Legacy of Guilt. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc.
Nour, N. “Clinical Management of Circumcised Women”. Slide
presentation and lecture at the 14th annual SMCR Conference, June
2001.
Parvati Baker, J. Ending Circumcision: Where Sex and Violence First
Meet. (on-site essay at www.birthpsychology.com)
Ritter, J. (1992). Say No to Circumcision! Forty Compelling Reasons
Why You Should Respect His Birthright and Keep Your Son Whole.* Aptos:
Hourglass Book Publishing.
Romberg, R. (1985). Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma.* South
Hadley: Bergin & Garvey Publishers
Thorwald, J. (1962). Science and Secrets of Early Medicine. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Verny, T. (1981). The Secret Life of the Unborn Child. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Wallerstein, E. (1980). Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy.*
New York: Springer Publishing Company.
www.webmagician.com Click
splash page and then Public Service Message