The case for circumcision

I’m a mohel — a ritual circumciser. That means that, by its very nature, I hold one of the most controversial jobs on the market. Many other professions are more in the limelight, but few garner as much venom. Because of my work, I’m regularly called a child abuser, rapist and pedophile. The fringe groups dedicated to restricting my religious freedom endlessly scour social media to verbally attack unsuspecting parents celebrating their newborns. I often lock horns with these fanatics to defend both the practice and those who undergo it.

Although there’s regular news coverage on the issue, seldom is circumcision the topic of a major article in mainstream newspapers and magazines. But Esquire magazine did feature an article entitled, “The Case Against Circumcision,” by Scott Raab. The author is admittedly both Jewish and circumcised, and although he has spent time researching the matter, he has come to the opposite conclusion from his faith.

Throughout the article, vivid descriptions and grotesque terminology are utilized to make the reader overtly uncomfortable. Words such as “amputated,”, “crushed”, “peeled” appear often to intentionally make the reader “queasy.” This is a classic tactic of the anti-circumcision movement. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone outside the medical community comfortable with these types of descriptions. One could even motivate a brain surgery patient to refuse treatment if the surgeon described the process in such detail. 

Raab and I do have areas of agreement. We are both opposed to the usage of the circumcision tool known as the Gomco clamp. The device is overtly painful and, for that reason, is forbidden under Jewish law. We both demand that some form of pain relief be administered to the child for the procedure. Judaism requires that we do all we can to minimize the pain the baby endures and we must sterilize our tools at the highest level. The child’s safety and overall well-being is paramount. 

One of the most fanciful claims made in the article is that circumcision shouldn’t be performed because no other living creatures do it. Raab attests that they don’t because it’s crazy to “mutilate” oneself. A proof from the behavior of animals is complete nonsense. There are plenty of things animals don’t do which we do, such as speak. Are we meant to follow their lead in other regards as well? Animals also don’t pierce their ears. Is that a proof text for abolishing that practice as well?

Medical benefits of circumcision are briefly discussed but heavily downplayed in the piece. The only two conclusive results, according to Raab, are the reduced risk of urinary tract infections and the prevention of penile cancer later in life. These two alone are nothing to scoff at. Penile cancer is a serious risk, as are UTIs. Although most cases of urinary tract infections in infants pass with little lasting effects, UTIs are a leading cause of sepsis, which results in over 200,000 deaths annually worldwide.

However, these are not the only benefits of the procedure. Circumcision also reduces the risk of cervical cancer in one’s partner. Without a foreskin, there is less bacteria in the region. The prepuce traps dirt and other unwanted residue, which also increases the likelihood for sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, foreskin complications often occur on their own, from phimosis (the tightening of the prepuce) to foreskin damage caused by a zipper and the like. Statistics show that even though most won’t need circumcision, a meaningful minority will — and for them, early circumcision can simplify treatment and prevent later complications.

The most highly debated topic in circumcision is sensitivity. Opponents of the practice argue that there is significant reduction in sensation with the removal of the prepuce. In this regard, I agree with Raab that nothing is conclusive. One’s experience of pleasure is so deeply connected to the psyche, it is challenging to get an accurate reading of the difference between before and after a circumcision. The most conclusive study noted a direct correlation to how one feels about the procedure and sexual satisfaction. Those who are unhappy with their circumcision have a lower overall sexual satisfaction, while those happy about it have a higher level of sexual satisfaction.

One of the most engaging parts of the article discusses how men relate to their own genitalia. Raab insists that modern men should not focus on size and girth, the way previous generations have. There’s something endearing about the author’s concern for the mental well-being of his fellow man. But he also admits to having apologized to his son for hurting him in making him undergo a circumcision as a neonate. This small act could potentially be the downfall of his son’s future sexual happiness. A Queens University study also shows that relating to circumcision negatively can have an adverse effect on one’s sexual satisfaction.

Scott Raab’s understanding of circumcision, or as we Jews call it Brit Milah, is quite skewed. The only Jewish sources he quotes are the story of the Akedah, the binding of Isaac where he is nearly sacrificed, and the Rambam’s understanding, linking it to diminished sexual appetite. Strictly viewing the rite through these lenses will affect how one feels about the convention. 

Like most things in Judaism, there are a plethora of teachings on all topics. Although some see Brit Milah as a sacrifice, others see it as a message of nationhood and Jewish identity. Some modern day interpretations even explain the practice as satisfying the father’s subconscious desire to be the birthing parent and a reminder that sex is not meant to be a violent act. 

Just as in all aspects of life, choosing to view things in a certain way affects our world outlook. I choose to see Brit Milah as the fundamental cornerstone of our faith. It is what has preserved us as a nation for millenia. This is not to say there aren’t challenging aspects to the ritual. Our modern-day sensibilities will not let us overlook that fact. 

This is why my work as a mohel is so vital. We Jews must continue the covenant of circumcision because to obviate it would be to spit on the graves of our ancestors, many of whom died to preserve this tradition.

I am not a doctor. I am not simply performing a procedure that is medically beneficial. I am strengthening the Jewish people, one family at a time. And my job is to help those struggling to find meaning in our tradition forge a clear path so that our timeless rituals can live on.