Demographic Differences in Circumcision Satisfaction among U.S. Males
Men's Health Journal,
Vol. 5 No. 1 (2021),
6 January 2021
,
Page e5
https://doi.org/10.22037/mhj.v5i1.33356
Abstract
Introduction: Male circumcision involves the partial or total removal of the prepuce (foreskin) from the penis, and it is the most common surgical procedure performed on infants in the USA. According to social convention theory, in demographic populations where male circumcision is more socially accepted, we would predict that circumcised men would be more likely to report satisfaction with their circumcision status. This exploratory study investigated the ways in which particular demographic sub-groups have differing attitudes and levels of satisfaction based on their circumcision status. Materials and Methods: The participant data used in these analyses are from a study conducted to explore the effects of false beliefs concerning circumcision and intact penises on circumcision satisfaction. After participant exclusion based on additional criteria, 902 male participants from the United States, ranging in age from 18-75 (M = 34.0, SD = 10.0), remained. A series of demographic information by circumcision status between participants Analysis of Variances (ANOVA) were conducted on circumcision status satisfaction. Results: Results indicated that circumcision status satisfaction varied as a function of race/ethnicity, religion, relationship status, and sexual orientation. Statistically significant differences in circumcision status satisfaction were found for all of the demographic variables. Conclusion: Using social convention theory, these data suggest that circumcision satisfaction is related to endorsement of the dominant culture and its norms surrounding the masculine body. Further investigation is warranted regarding causal implications of how one’s demographic characteristics may affect one’s satisfaction with their circumcision status.
- sexuality
- masculinity
- satisfaction
- circumcision
How to Cite
References
Sardi L, Livingston K. Parental decision making in male circumcision. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2015;40(2):110-5.
Pfuntner A, Wier L, Stocks C. Most frequent procedures performed in US hospitals, 2011: Statistical Brief# 165. 2013.
WP W, AJ W, A E. Overview of hospital stays for children in the United States, 2012. 2014 December 2014.
Morris BJ, Wamai RG, Henebeng EB, Tobian AA, Klausner JD, Banerjee J, et al. Estimation of country-specific and global prevalence of male circumcision. Popul Health Metr. 2016;14:4.
UNAIDS, WHO. Neonatal and child male circumcision: a global review. 2010 April 2010.
Rickwood AM. Medical indications for circumcision. BJU Int. 1999;83 Suppl 1:45-51.
Sneppen I, Thorup J. Foreskin Morbidity in Uncircumcised Males. Pediatrics. 2016;137(5).
Wahlberg A, Essen B, Johnsdotter S. From sameness to difference: Swedish Somalis' post-migration perceptions of the circumcision of girls and boys. Cult Health Sex. 2019;21(6):619-35.
Abathun AD, Gele AA, Sundby J. Attitude towards the Practice of Female Genital Cutting among School Boys and Girls in Somali and Harari Regions, Eastern Ethiopia. Obstetrics and Gynecology International. 2017;2017:1567368.
Freymeyer RH, Johnson BE. An exploration of attitudes toward female genital cutting in Nigeria. Population Research and Policy Review. 2007;26(1):69-83.
Mackie G. Ending Footbinding and Infibulation: A Convention Account. American Sociological Review. 1996;61(6):999-1017.
Mackie G, LeJeune J. Social Dynamics of Abandonment of Harmful Practices. 2009.
Bell K. Genital cutting and western discourses on sexuality. Med Anthropol Q. 2005;19(2):125-48.
Johnsdotter S. Girls and Boys as Victims : Asymmetries and dynamics in European public discourses on genital modifications in children. In: Michela Fusaschi GC, Michela Fusaschi GC, editors. FGM/C : From Medicine to Critical Anthropology: Meti Edizioni; 2018. p. 31-47.
Shweder RA. The goose and the gander: the genital wars. Global Discourse. 2013;3(2):348-66.
Harrison DM. Rethinking Circumcision and Sexuality in the United States. Sexualities. 2002;5(3):300-16.
Earp BD, Sardi LM, Jellison WA. False beliefs predict increased circumcision satisfaction in a sample of US American men. Cult Health Sex. 2018;20(8):945-59.
Risser JM, Risser WL, Eissa MA, Cromwell PF, Barratt MS, Bortot A. Self-assessment of circumcision status by adolescents. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(11):1095-7.
Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6(1):3-5.
Dow DM. The Deadly Challenges of Raising African American Boys: Navigating the Controlling Image of the “Thug”. Gender & Society. 2016;30(2):161-88.
Ricciardelli LA, McCabe MP, Williams RJ, Thompson JK. The role of ethnicity and culture in body image and disordered eating among males. Clinical psychology review. 2007;27(5):582-606.
Webb TT, Looby EJ, Fults-McMurtery R. African American men’s perceptions of body figure attractiveness: An acculturation study. Journal of Black Studies. 2004;34(3):370-85.
Cheng H-L, McDermott RC, Wong YJ, La S. Drive for muscularity in Asian American men: Sociocultural and racial/ethnic factors as correlates. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 2016;17(3):215.
McGruder K. Black sexuality in the US: Presentations as non-normative. Journal of African American Studies. 2009;13(3):251-62.
Roberts DE. Killing the black body : race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. 1st ed. New York: Pantheon Books; 1997. x, 373 p. p.
Roberts D. Fatal invention: How science, politics, and big business re-create race in the twenty-first century: New Press/ORIM; 2011.
Innes RA, Anderson K. Indigenous men and masculinities: Legacies, identities, regeneration: Univ. of Manitoba Press; 2015.
Glick LB. Marked in your flesh: Circumcision from ancient Judea to modern America: Oxford University Press; 2005.
Kimmel MS. The Kindest Un-Cut: Feminism. Judaism, and My Sons Foreskin. 2001.
Mark EW. The covenant of circumcision: new perspectives on an ancient Jewish rite: UPNE; 2003.
Abu-Sahlieh SAA. To mutilate in the name of Jehovah or Allah: legitimization of male and female circumcision. Med & L. 1994;13:575.
Abu-Sahlieh SA. Male and female Circumcision. Marco Polo Monographs, Shangri-La Publications, Warren, PA. 2001.
Dabbagh H. The Ethics of Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcision Under Islamic Law. TARBIYA: Journal of Education in Muslim Society. 2017;4(2):216-23.
Henerey A. Evolution of male circumcision as normative control. The Journal of Men’s Studies. 2004;12(3):265-76.
Waldeck SE. Using male circumcision to understand social norms as multipliers. U Cin L Rev. 2003;72:455.
Anwar MS, Munawar F, Anwar Q. Circumcision: a religious obligation or 'the cruellest of cuts'? Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(570):59-61.
Goldman R. Circumcision: the hidden trauma. Boston: Vanguard. 1997:108-9.
Friedman MA, Dixon AE, Brownell KD, Whisman MA, Wilfley DE. Marital status, marital satisfaction, and body image dissatisfaction. Int J Eat Disord. 1999;26(1):81-5.
Loehle B, McKie RM, Levere D, Bossio JA, Humphreys TP, Travers R. Predictors of men's genital self-image across sexual orientation and geographic region. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. 2017;26(2):130-41.
Drummond MJ, Filiault SM. The long and the short of it: Gay men's perceptions of penis size. 2007.
Sardi LM. The male neonatal circumcision debate: Social movements, sexual citizenship, and human rights. Societies Without Borders. 2011;6(3):304-29.
Darby R, Svoboda JS. A rose by any other name? Rethinking the similarities and differences between male and female genital cutting. Medical anthropology quarterly. 2007;21(3):301-23.
Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. BJU Int. 1999;83 Suppl 1:34-44.
Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, Eden C, Milos MF, Wilcox N, et al. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int. 2007;99(4):864-9.
Zoske J. Male circumcision: A gender perspective. The Journal of Men’s Studies. 1998;6(2):189-208.
- Abstract Viewed: 338 times
- pdf Downloaded: 276 times