The Süddeutsche Zeitung reported this morning that a 77-year-old Turkish man has been convicted here in Germany of inflicting bodily harm for performing circumcisions on boys. When my wife was expecting our son almost four years ago, I looked into circumcision. My wife was totally against it. I figured it wasn't necessary, but wanted to look into it.

I was surprised to find that the United States are pretty much the only industrialized country where this is still common. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the product of unbroken religious tradition since biblical times, but a product of 19th-century efforts at cleanliness, including the belief that circumcision would prevent boys from masturbating. In Great Britain, the circumcision rate dropped dramatically when it was taken off the procedures covered by the public health system. In the U.S. it increased until the mid 1960s to a rate of about 80% and has decreased gradually since. Judging by the attitudes and opinions I have gathered on various internet forums, I have the impression that the drop in the U.S. is NOT due to increased understanding of medical issues (i..e. it is not a necessary procedure), but probably simply a result of the demographic shift: more Latinos in the population.

The reasons given include religious conviction (the "covenant" with God), cleanliness (as if we can't teach boys to wash), and wanting the son to "look" like dad. That last reason strikes me as particularly odd. Can't we just explain the difference? After all, nothing about the son will look exactly like dad's. Or is it that we Americans feel uncomfortable talking about genitals with our children?

In Germany, the procedure is not a religious, cultural, or hygiene option, but a procedure allowed only for medical reasons, such as a narrow forskin. Performing the procedure for any other reason is against the law.