Congratulations! You are having a boy
Yes, and now is the time to read up and consider a sensitive topic, whether to circumcise. A difficult topic, but worthy of your consideration….Male circumcision is actually infant male circumcision in western culture…and that makes a difference. Consider that boy infants do not really know they exist outside of Mom’s protective field. Circumcised baby boys often go into a shock response, even when done in a faith based procedure. Parents definitely have a “right to choose” whether or not to circumcise. However, infants are much more delicate and perceptive than was previously thought, and parents are often ignorant of the unnamed later consequences for their child.
Please become informed about the practice and history of circumcision, and share this information with prospective parents.
Psychological Impacts of Infant Boy Circumcision
Knowing a bit about a boy body ( 8,000 nerves converge on this very sensitive area of the penis head) and my work with adult clients taught me that yes, there is a detrimental impact. Most US males over a certain age have been circumcised. Now, the practice is down to 50% of boys. It seems highly likely that circumcision sends infant male babies into a shock response.
Male clients have expressed that circumcision impacts:
- identity beliefs and self-esteem (why would a part of me not be acceptable?),
- a sense of personal power and potency, and can be the basis of an unresolved anger at women (mom didn’t protect me, it is often female nurses in hospitals who perform circumcision),
- and men (father didn’t protect me!) There can be a mistrust around sexuality and intimacy, and sometimes a vengeance.
- There can be a counter-phobic response, needing to “prove oneself” capable to others.
Think through the concerns that lead to circumcision
- The fear that “my son will be made fun of if he doesn’t look like me” is a common reason the practice is perpetuated. However, at what cost really?
- Interviews with intact males have negated some of those “my son in the locker room” fears.
- Jewish circumcision was previously only a nick of the foreskin for identity and respect of faith, not a foreskin removal, according to research scholar Miriam Pollack. Full removal became more popular during the Roman Games when men were naked and didn’t want to stand out from Romans for fear of extra persecution.
- Without the foreskin, the penis is no longer naturally lubricated. The penis head is more exposed and becomes a bit desensitized. More friction is needed to feel stimulated. This is especially troubling for sex with women in later years, since as women age they produce less lubrication.
- Finally, the health risks attributed to foreskins have been disproven. Intact foreskins do not promote the spread of aids, and there is not a prevailing health risk to young men
- The Nederlands has outlawed circumcision.
Also a new video out on this topic. The Cut. Good interviews and thinking!