Does circumcision cause psychological harm?

Post Reply New Topic

Circumcision is a euphemism for genital reduction surgery or genital mutilation, performed by medically-licensed or unqualified practitioners for various reasons. It is important to define it honestly, for that is how the mind interprets it, with or without superimposed denials, explanations and intellectualisations.

Many circumcisions are performed on children, who, by definition are not able to give informed consent of the kind available to adults. They are vulnerable to coercion and manipulation and generally have little say in what happens to their bodies medically & surgically. They are not usually allowed to say no to medical procedures because it is deemed that parents & doctors "know best". However, it is unlikely that any child, asked if they would like a person with a knife to cut off part of their penis, would agree to such an action. This would be a normal psychological reaction to the threat of attack and is overruled at some psychological cost.

When one's own natural tendency to protect oneself is rendered ineffective, one loses a sense of one's own power over one's destiny & survival, and a feeling of helplessness ensues. This occurs in situations of rape, torture and sexual abuse. In a situation where a person feels he or she cannot escape physical attack, the mind will "escape" by a process of "dissociation" - it is as if the mind leaves the body temporarily, so that the body can endure the attack, but the mind does not have to. On returning to the body, the mind may then be subject to unconscious repetitions of the traumatic memories in flashbacks or nightmares. These recurring images may be triggered by any situation which reminds the sufferer of the original traumatic event; a child who has been subjected to a painful surgical procedure in hospital may develop a phobia of hospitals or doctors or people in white coats. The child, or later the adult he grows into, may sweat, have palpitations, feel breathless, nauseated, panicky or dizzy at the thought of the trauma situation and try to avoid it happening again. This may lead to difficulty when medical attention is genuinely needed for a subsequent illness.

One man, who had been subjected to circumcision at the age of three years old, vividly recalled at the age of thirty, how he had been undressed and his penis manipulated by a man in a mask pre-operatively, without his consent. The child had experienced an erection about which he was embarrassed, and then, post-operatively found himself with a bleeding, painful penis from which the foreskin had been amputated without his permission. This event had changed his life. He was angry that this had been done to him and humiliated by his powerlessness to protect himself from what felt like sexual manipulation. He felt that he had been sexually abused. In any other context than the medical one, the same sequence of events would be open to an interpretation of sexual abuse. To the child, the psychological impact is the same, whether it is illegal rape or legalised medical activity.

Another man, who was circumcised at the age of seven, asked what was going to happen to him in hospital. He was told that it was "nothing" and he didn't need to worry his head about it. After the operation he was devastated to find that part of his penis was missing and that his trust in his parents' words had been misplaced. It was as if his experience of losing part of his body was not worth a mention or an explanation.

The process of psychological dissociation from trauma, and the subsequent re-experiencing of frightening images, plus avoidance of situations which symbolise the trauma, is called Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD for short. It is a collection of symptoms recognised in some soldiers after combat and in victims of extreme terror. It has been shown to occur in women after gynaecological procedures and after circumcision in children of both sexes.

Some of the factors which contribute to the experience being traumatic are:

* the feelings of powerlessness or loss of control over one's own body;
* the lack of information given; the perceived lack of sympathy of the examiner;
* the experience of physical pain, and the lack of consent to the operation.

A child subjected to amputation of part of his body, whatever the reason given, is likely to experience all of these factors. In addition, if the child perceives that the parents have failed to protect him from surgical "attack", whatever their reasons, there is a loss of trust in the carers, and, perhaps, in all authority. This difficulty in trusting others can lead to avoidance of relationships, sometimes lifelong, and conflict with authority. Shame of the damaged penis and embarrassment about being mutilated can lead to avoidance of sexual relationships, again, sometimes lifelong.

The child may grow up in ignorance of his circumcision, particularly if it has been done shortly after birth and if his peers are also circumcised. However, when it is discovered that part of his genitalia has been removed without his permission, often for no good reason, there is a loss reaction amounting to grief. The loss may be minimised and trivialised so as not to expose the mind to too much psychic pain; the pain of loss is profound. There may be a denial of its significance and, in order to maintain the image of the parent as "good", it may be idealised as a "good thing" which parents should do to their children if they care about them. Hence, the transgenerational passage of circumcision practice from father to son. For the cycle of mutilation to be broken, at least one generation would need to face the true nature of the activity and acknowledge the harm and the pain caused. This is a courageous act, since it brings into play feelings of betrayal and abandonment by one's own parents; that instead of protecting one's body from harm, they have given their child into the hands of a stranger to remove part of his body.

The intellectualisation of a harmful act is a way of turning "bad" into "good" - the thought process may run thus: "my parents cut off part of my body and despite the fact that I didn't like it, my parents are good - so cutting off part of my body was good - therefore, to be a good parent myself, I must do the same to my son...". And so the cycle of abuse continues. Similarly within the medical profession- "I was circumcised/have done circumcisions - I was not harmed/have not harmed my patients - therefore to circumcise is trivial, harmless and necessary..." If the doctor is in a process of trying to deny that he has been harmed by his own circumcision, he may be psychologically compelled to repeat the act on his patients to "prove" that circumcision is "harmless". In addition, when a circumcision victim becomes a circumciser, he is no longer powerless to attack - he is now the powerful attacker, thus redressing some of the balance in relation to his own fear of repetition of his own trauma.

We all try to repeat traumatic situations in order to resolve the original anxiety: battered women marry violent husbands; the children of alcoholics may marry drinkers; and foreskin amputees sometimes become compulsive circumcisers. Freud called it, "the compulsion to repeat"; Alice Miller described how people who are dissociated from, and deny the significance of, the original cause of their own pain, will often find expression in destructive acts against others.

In order to heal losses of any kind and to avoid perpetuating harm on the next generation, it is therefore psychologically necessary to acknowledge the harm done by circumcision and to grieve its effect. This involves a painful and protracted process, including initial denial, followed by anger & blame, then anxiety & searching, sadness & depression, and, ultimately, acceptance and reinvestment of energy into the future.

Most important of all, is to enter the child's world and see circumcision for what it is from the child's perspective. It is a forced robbery of a treasured part of his body and nobody except he, as an adult, can legitimately give permission for its removal.

"Circumcision and Psychological Harm"

Dr Janet Menage MA MB ChB

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_psy ... fects.html
-----------------------------------------------------


Bibliography for the essay is available on the link provided above.

Foreskin removal lowers the risk of cancer of the glans penis. Do you think this advantage causes psychological damage. Foreskin removal also lowers the risk of AIDS.

Foreskin removal does not prevent urination nor does it promote erectile dysfunction, so what is the problem with it?

ruveyn

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision. ... ement.html

Biased studies conducted by sick men who like to touch little boys' penises.

Yes, it is mutilation and yes, it can cause psychological harm. It does seem to protect somewhat against AIDS and it causes no problems with sex. I was circumcised as a baby and have no memory of it. At a more advanced age, if it is to be done, there should be precautions against pain. Originally it was a religious action but many Americans are circumcised with no religious connection.

Well, I can't tell you about the psychological damage but I think it's wrong do something cosmetic like that to a child that's irreversible. I don't think kids are too worried about AIDS or other STDs until they're old enough themselves to make that decision.

Speaking personally, I have no recollection of my circumcision, and I am perfectly happy with my penis, thank you very much. I harbour no resentment towards my parents, and I am assured by two of my friends who were circumcised as adults that they suffered no significant change in sexual function.

I am neither a urologist nor a paediatrician, but as a physician I would recommend against neonatal circumcision, absent a compelling medical or cultural reason. "It's cleaner and healthier," is an invalid reason. "His Dad and his brother are circumcised," is a poor reason. "We are observant [insert religious tradition here]," is a better reason. Recurrent inflammation that is not responsive to other therapies is probably one of the few medically valid reasons.

As for the two examples cited in the OP, I think it is important to distinguish between poor medical practice or poor parenting and unnecessary surgical intervention. I would be very surprised if a circumcision was performed on a boy older than a few weeks without a medically valid rationale (based on the medical knowledge at the time).

When a child must undergo surgery, any surgery, he should be treated with respect, in age-appropriate language. He should not be lied to. Saying, "it's nothing, don't worry about it," is a cop out. The boys who were circumcised at age 3 and age 7 were treated badly and were lied to--but this does not mean that their circumcisions were not necessary or advisable.

It's not irreversible but it's not simple to reverse the process and essentially involves stretching of the skin over long periods of time. They showed one method on Penn & Teller's BS when they did an episode on circumcision.

I don't remember my own circumcision, which is probably a good thing since they had to do it with a local anesthetic, and I screamed (according to my mom). At least I can take comfort in the fact that it was medically necessary-I was 4 mo old and the foreskin was deformed and was strangling the penis of oxygen. Only about 1-2% of circumcisions are needed, like mine was.

It didn't have any lasting psychological damage, and growing up I thought nothing of it. I was quite surprised to learn that some men are really scarred by cutting, which I learned from the internet. Worst off seem to be Jews, who are cut in a manner that has more to do with ancient ritual than modern medicine. Jews are circumcised by rabbis, and the rabbi is a religious leader, not a doctor.

Modern non-Jew cutting seems to have been promoted during the Gilded Age 130 years ago as a way to stop pubescent masturbation. It doesn't. People do it just because it's "always been done". I guess it's easier than teaching boys how to properly clean themselves, something girls are forced to learn to prevent infection. Doctors no longer force male cutting on parents, and increasing numbers are choosing not to. The Prince and Princess of Wales (Charles and Diana) opted not to cut their two sons.

Jewish cutting is another matter. Judaism is dying a slow death as a religion and culture as increasing numbers of Jews opt out of cultural isolation and to fully join the outside world, especially in the US, where Judaism is one of the fastest shrinking religions. Someday the "covenant of Abraham" will be just another weird religious artifact of the past.

I don't think psychological trauma can be proven at all. Edit: Do notice though that many people with proven childhood trauma do not really remember the trauma and just go around with their impairments until they seek therapy and find the real cause of it.

However, it seems that the area removed by it is a sensory organ and removal supposedly reduces the sexual experience. Or maybe it is just a piece of skin that does nothing and causes cancer, then the religious guys promoting circumspection would have to answer in what way was the male penis designed intelligently if such sort of mutilation is necessary...

Any excuse for a study that tries to justify ritual mutilation (there's no other name for it) is not going to get much of my respect.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 03 Aug 2010, 4:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

If you want to talk about religious circumcision, you might want to recall that there are about 500million muslim men in the world. While it is not compulsory for muslim men, WHO estimates suggests that is it is a virtually universal practice among muslims.

Jewish circumcisions are of trivial number in comparison.

Ritual mutilation, whether it was caused by Jewish, Muslims or fundamentalist Christians, is still mutilation.

Female "circumcision" certainly leads to psychological, physiological and developmental harm.

Male circumcision probably occurs too early in a man's life for it to cause psychological harm, as for that individual there will be no recollection of anything different. However, I disagree with the practice, as it is a form of mutilation that is done without the individual's consent, and in general it is a cultural throwback to when we all lived in the desert.

I don't mean to direct this at you but it's something I find weird and ironic. The hardcore christians are anti-abortion because it's alive and everything else but they're all gung-ho about lopping off a chunk of penis from little boys AFTER they've been born and say there's nothing wrong with it (despite it not being "god's design") and the baby won't remember it in at any level.

Brainwashing leads to such irrationalities.

a simple answer to the OP. YES, if it did not you would not have re-constructive surgery taking place. I have spoken to one male who has major issues with his circumcision. So by the literal wording of your post male circumcision definitely does cause psychological harm, to what extent I am unsure. With regard to female circumcision straight logic would tell you that it must cause psychological, and possible physiological harm

Circumcision's a part of Judaism and Islam, not Christianity. I have no clue why it's so widely practised in America.

Another argument against it is what if something goes wrong? There is the case of David Reimer, whose was circumcised with some electrical device witch malfunctioned and caused so much damage that his entire penis had to be removed. If they'd left things alone that never would've happened. The only thing that should be cut-off a baby as a matter of course is the umbilical cord.