Right up front I will tell you that this is a post about circumcision. My views about circumcision have changed over the last number of years and my opinions have become stronger. This blog is going to be full of facts AND my opinions and I will use the correct terms for parts of the body (and maybe some incorrect terms, just because).
Just putting that out there. :)
If you are pro-circumcision and don't want your ideas challenged, then please read no further.
A little over 7 years ago, my first (and only, so far) son was born. It was a traumatic experience for many reasons. But the experience I'm left with the most "mommy-guilt" over is having him circumcised. And the only thing I can do is plead ignorance. I just didn't know any better and felt like that was a decision for the dad to make. And since Brent is circumcised, he felt that Roo should be. Oh, how I wish I could go back to that day and do it over again. Why? Because my mommy-gut (aka mother's intuition, aka the Spirit) was telling me "Don't let them do this." And I didn't follow it. Now, having learned what I've learned about this practice, I understand what my mommy-gut was trying to tell me.
Here is what I believe about circumcision now: At its very BEST it's unnecessary cosmetic surgery. At its very WORST it's male genital mutilation.
Let's look at reasons for keeping a baby boy whole at birth.
1. I don't believe God made a mistake when it comes to all male beings. All males are born with foreskin. Therefore it must serve a purpose. Men were created in the image of God, right? It would seem logical that that would include genitalia.
2. Birth, in and of itself, is a traumatic, tiring, new, sensational experience for a tiny little being to go through. Why should we top it all off by strapping him down and cutting him apart?
3. There are still a huge number of doctors who perform this surgery without the use of anesthetic. I should probably leave my opinion that those-doctors-should-be-strung-up-by-their-toes-and-left-for-the-vultures out of this, but there it is.
4. No experimental anesthetic has been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain. Research in this area continues and meanwhile, all these baby boys are basically guinea pigs.
5. The foreskin is FULL of nerve endings. It's one of the most sensitive areas on a male. Tell me again why we want to cut it off?
6. The foreskin DOES have a purpose (a few of them, actually). You can read about it here. And here's an article with just about every piece of information you could ever want to know about foreskin. It's not just some useless piece of skin. Suffice it to say that there are practical and sexual purposes.
7. It's elective surgery. ELECTIVE. SURGERY. What elective surgery might it be ok to put all baby girls through? Surgery is a serious thing. Things go wrong. Circumcisions get botched. Children DIE from this. Rare, yes, but still a risk. Foreskins are not a deformity in need of cosmetic repair.
8. The AAP does not recommend routine infant circumcision (RIC).
----------------------
Now let's look at some of the most often-used excuses people have for doing it.
1. First, my initial reasoning: "The dad should be the one to decide."
Why? Just because he has a penis? So I get to do whatever I want to my girls' vaginas without getting Brent's consent or input? What if I want to pierce their nether-regions? I'm fairly sure Brent would have an opinion about that, but since his nether-regions differ from his daughters' then he doesn't get a say? Somehow I'm thinking this wouldn't go over very well.
Yes, the dads have the same parts as their sons. Yes, they have experience in the men's locker room. Yes, they "get it" more than we moms ever will. But that doesn't mean mothers shouldn't get a say in what happens. It doesn't mean mothers' opinions on the matter count less.
2. "I want him to look like his dad."
First of all, I'd like a raise of hands from all of the men who've compared private parts with their dads. I'm guessing the last time most men did was when they were between the ages of 3 and 8, which is a time when there are a heck of a lot more differences "down there" than foreskin or lack of foreskin. If we want our sons to look like their fathers, should we also glue some hair on? Because that's usually the first thing my kids notice.
And if this is the argument, then should we also give our daughters breast implants? Because my girls have all noticed the difference there.
3. "He'll get made fun of in the locker room if he's intact."
Luckily leaving boys intact is a rising trend. There are different estimates out there, but in a lot of states the ratio is 50/50. (Unfortunately it's probably not that high in my state {insert eye-rolling}.)
Here are my counter-arguments for this one:
I think most boys are going to be able to think of a pretty good comeback for the first boy to start making fun of his parts. Why on earth is any boy checking out the packages on his classmates?
Also, I think if you teach your intact son about the differences up-front and let him know how lucky he is to still have his foreskin, he'll probably be able to handle a little teasing and even turn it back around on the teasers.
And again, let's compare this to girls. I was what you might call a "slow-grower" when it came to my boobs. While I was inches taller than most girls my age, my chest was sadly-lacking when most other girls had something worthy of wearing a bra for. I think I finally convinced my mother to give me a bra in the 7th or 8th grade since I was in PE, even though I technically didn't need it yet. She gave me my sister's old bra. The problem with that was when my sister started wearing a bra, she had a reason to. Since my reason was not visible, it meant I had to make the choice between Kleenex and Wrinkle-Chest. I opted for Kleenex. So if anybody knows anything about locker-room embarrassment, I think I've got a pretty good handle on it.
So now bringing this back around to my daughters. If they take after me, they will probably go through some tough times in the "boob-lacking department." Does this mean I should give them implants to save them from some *possible* embarrassment? Or should I speak with them openly and honestly and often about how each person's body develops on a different time-line and that getting boobs at the age of 8 isn't necessarily a good thing?
4. "It's cleaner to be circumcised."
There is nothing about foreskin that is inherently dirty. All little boys need to be taught good hygiene. And they'll all probably go through phases where their hygiene may be a little lacking, according to their mothers. But that's what makes them boys, right? This is simply a matter of teaching children how to care for their bodies. And taking care of an intact penis is no harder than taking care of a circumcised penis. In fact, at first it's easier since you shouldn't retract the foreskin on an intact baby boy. You wash it like you would a finger.
5. "They're more likely to get UTIs (urinary tract infections) when left intact."
This is actually partially false. There is a higher probability of boys under the age of 1 getting UTIs (circumcised and intact boys, but with intact boys being at a higher risk) over girls, but by the age of 5, UTIs are 50 times more common in girls than in boys. And by adulthood, UTIs are 30 times more common among women than men.
So if you really look at it, maybe it's the girls we should be taking the knife to if we're so concerned about UTIs. Oh wait, that's against the law. So why is it allowed for little boys?
The UTI argument, to me, is akin to saying, "My child might possibly get hang nails in the future. We should pull out his/her fingernails and toenails just to lessen the chance." Or "Our family has a history of bad teeth. We should just pull our kids' teeth as soon as they come in and just give them dentures now."
6. "Intact penises are ugly." (Yes, I've heard people give this reasoning.)
First of all, beauty is ALWAYS in the eye of the beholder. Second of all, I don't think male or female genitalia are particularly pleasant-looking, so why is it ok to perform cosmetic surgery on one and not the other? If it's just to make them prettier to look at, shouldn't we be giving equal treatment to our girls?
7. "God commanded it in the Bible."
God commanded a lot of things in the Bible that He hasn't commanded in latter days. He also only commanded circumcision for a few different groups of people, not everybody. But the most important thing to know about this is that Biblical circumcision looked nothing like today's circumcision. They took off MUCH less skin. They basically cut off the very tip, not the entire foreskin like is done today. Here's a good article about why Biblical circumcision has nothing to do with the practice of it today. And here are some references in Mormon scripture about circumcision.
8. "I know a guy who had to have a circumcision when he was older (a teen, adult, etc.) and it was HORRIBLE!!!"
This one just defies logic, to me. Why would it be any less horrible for an infant? (I would argue that it's worse for the infant.) Most people use the excuse that it's better because they won't remember it. Like that somehow means it doesn't affect them. It has been well-documented that the newborn's behavior changes following circumcision. I know it did with my son. They are more irritable, more fussy, are harder to console. It causes problems with breastfeeding quite often. And it has an effect on the mother-baby bond.
When anyone other than an infant goes in for a circumcision, they are put under general anesthesia. This is thought to be too risky for an infant, so they aren't given this privilege. When anyone other than an infant goes home from a circumcision, they are given pain meds and ointments and smelling salts to ward off erections to try to ease their pain as much as possible. Why aren't infants given these same things? We take them home and are told to put vaseline on their diapers so that their wounds won't stick. That's about it. When will we stop treating babies as sub par humans? Just because they can't vocalize their pain and agony, like someone older can, doesn't make it any less real.
The truth is that there is rarely a true medical need for a circumcision. Doctors (especially urologists) are quick to jump on the "he needs a circumcision" bandwagon when there are usually other ways of dealing with any issues. Only 1 in every 100 intact men ever has any sort of medical problem regarding their foreskin. And a huge percentage of those still will never need surgery to correct it. So why circumcise the other 99?
---------------
If we have more sons, they will be left whole at birth. I believe (now) that a child has the right to decide for themselves what should be done with such a personal piece of their body. Some may then question, "Well, how are you going to explain to your boys about the fact that they're different?" The simple answer to that is: we'll talk to them. Really, we're quite open parents about all of this stuff, and I already plan on explaining to Roo why I would choose a different path now than I did then, even if we don't have another boy. And I hope that he will take that information with him when he goes on to have children of his own and will end this cycle. The other thing is, just because they're brothers, it doesn't mean they'd have identical penises anyway. I've seen brothers who are quite different in that department. How do their parents explain it? Or is it even something that gets brought up? Who knows? I don't have 2 boys. What I do know is that I won't put another child through cosmetic surgery so that he'll match his older brother, just like I wouldn't scar any of my children just to match their siblings' scars.
For anyone looking for more information, I've got some links. If you think you are leaning toward not having any future sons circumcised, but not sure if you can get your husband on-board, check out this link.
Here's a link with Frequently Asked Questions about circumcision.
This website is full of lots of great information about circumcision, its history, etc.
Circumcision Resource Center
http://www.nocirc.org/
If you think I'm brazen in my words and opinions, here's a lady who's even more outspoken than I. She takes the boy/girl comparisons one step further.
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
My goal in writing this post is to hopefully have parents think twice about circumcision, do some in-depth research about it, and pray hard before making this permanent decision for their little boys.
Ann & Brent
AJ (Ann, Jr.)
Roo
Tink
Lady
June
Buddy
8 comments:
much of the reason that i do things relates to money, for example:
#1: i breastfeed because it's cheaper,
#2 i didn't want to be induced, or have an IV because, well, it's cheaper...
#3 i wish someone would have told me that if we avoided circumcision that well, it would have been cheaper!
maybe terrible reasoning, but i get to the same conclusion you get... :)
I have heard every thing you are talking about. I've done the research. I've read the articles and have argued with people online (about 4 years ago).
And yet, all three of my boys have been circ'd. By a doctor. In a hospital. With local anesthetic.
It's fine if people don't want to circ their boys. Just don't call me a barbarian for having mine circ'd. ;)
P.S. Anyone who compares female circumcision with male circumcision deserves to be slapped (like that lady). The ONLY purpose of the clitoris is for sexual pleasure. A penis can still enjoy sex with or without the foreskin. Women circumcision is torture, used to demean and enslave women. This is why it is only done in countries where women have no rights. And comparing it to male circumcision boils my blood. Has for four years.
P.S.S. I love you, Ann. :)
Couple things anyone reading this needs to know about my background.
(I know you already know this Ann...but for those who don't.)
1- I really don't have a strong opinion about circumcision. My 2 boys are circumcised... in a hospital w/ local anesthetic.
2- My husband does have a very strong opinion about circumcision. In his family 2 boys are circumcised and 2 are not. He watched his 8 year old brother recover from circumcision.
I just want to play devil's advocate because I don't feel as passionate as some regarding circumcision.
*I think if your husband does have a strong opinion about then an honest conversation needs to happen to discover reasons for their opinion.
*I think family history needs to be taken into account. If several male family member found it necessary to be circumcised when they were older it needs to play a role in you decision.
*The males I know who were circumcised when they older all say they wish it would have been circumcised as an infant.
Ann it appears you have spent a lot of time doing extensive research. I just want to add my 2 cents for anyone doing their own research.
*Stats are subject to interpretation in an experiment the hypothesis always comes first and the researcher is looking for information to support their hypothesis.
*The professors I have had so far require anything I present as fact to be from a peer reviewed journal. You know those journals not the fun ones to read like Ladies Journal. :)
Emily, I agree with you that family history needs to be taken into account. I appreciate your unique perspective on this.
Cheryl, I love you too. But I have to disagree with you about something. Female genital mutilation is a broad term.
There are those cultures who do horrific things to their women as a means of keeping them submissive, it's true.
But yet there are others who do it as a rite of passage, the women WANT it and look forward to it.
There are some cultures who don't do anything nearly as horrific as what they like to talk about on Oprah, and yet it still falls under the definition of FGM. Sometimes a female circumcision is nothing more than a small incision or pin prick. So yes, comparing FGM to circumcision can be extremely relevant depending on which culture you're talking about. Some female circumcisions are much less damaging than male circumcisions. When you're comparing a pin prick to cutting off the entire foreskin, which one do you think is worse?
Also, I wouldn't call you a barbarian. But I would use that term for any doctor who performs a circumcision with either no anesthesia or not enough anesthesia. No one in this country would EVER think of performing a circumcision on an adult male with only the use of local anesthesia (let alone with none at all). Why are babies treated as lesser human beings?
Julie, I wish I could've told you before K was born, darn it! It is cheaper. :)
In my opinion, female circumcision of any kind is torture, whether the uneducated woman doing it believes it is or not. For example, slavery is wrong, whether or not it's tradition. Female circumcision makes NO sense. There is absolutely nothing healthy about it. It is akin to removing the entire penis, rather than circumcising it. It causes all kinds of complications, including infections. Pinprick or not, it is still torture. The intention is to remove a woman's ability to enjoy sex. Period. This is why any comparison to male circumcision makes me so angry. The difference is monumental and shouldn't even be discussed together in general terms.
In your arguments, you believe that, like female circumcision, male circumcision makes no sense. But to many of us who have done the research and have weighed the consequences and have made an educated decision, it makes a lot of sense.
The goal of ALL female circumcision is NOT to make sex unpleasant. Like I said, there are versions where there's really not much damage done at all. The clitoris is unharmed. The woman can go on to have a fine, enjoyable sex life. Only the horrendous, torturous versions get talked about on television. So I'm sorry if I see a correlation there. For me, there is one. Just because men who are circumcised can go on to have an enjoyable sex life, that doesn't therefore make the practice ok. (In my opinion.) Some cultures don't do FGM for the purpose of anything other than to "clean up" the woman's nether regions. Which is one of the reasons routine male circumcision is done here in the states. I'm sorry if you're offended by the comparison, but in my opinion, it's a relevant comparison for SOME cases of FGM.
Even the American Academy of Pediatrics states that the most common forms of female genital "cutting" are LESS severe than male circumcision.
I find it amazing that anyone could look at a minuscule pinprick as mutilation, but view amputation of the entire prepuce organ on a non-consenting minor as a matter of parental choice. Good grief, we'll stoop to anything to defend American idiocy while condemning cultural practices in other countries that are often LESS ridiculous than our own.
*shakes head sadly*
This generation of boys is going to grow up with a far greater awareness of this issue. Cut boys will have MANY intact peers. They will even be in the minority in some areas, like the west coast of the US. In my state, only about 1/3 of baby boys get cut now. Back in the day, men had the "comfort" of knowing all their peers were cut as well. But now cut boys are going to be all too aware of what they are missing out on. I quite frankly hope that when that happens someday, it is a rude awakening for the parents who sit here and attempt to justify it in the face of overwhelming evidence that the practice is utter garbage.
After having this procedure done (well I sobbed at hearing their screams a room away from me, where undoubtably they were terrified and hurting) TWICE because shamefully I thought that repeating thie barbaric experiance with our second son would not make me face the guilt and horror at allowing it done to my first son. I didn't want my first son to think that removing a part of his body was a mistake...of course it was. And now I have two sons to ask forgiveness of when they are old enough to understand and when they ask why they are different then their brothers (if that day even arises). I have many family members who had to have late circumcisions. These experiences influenced our choice to "spare" our children this later (I cannot see the logic now). The thing is with this way of thinking is to understand that many of these circumcisions were not necessary either. Many boys don't have foreskin that retracts before puberty and some not before 18. They may get infected, sure. So do ears. We don't HAVE THEM REMOVED! This is not a logical means of prevention! In looking at genetic risk (if you can even trace any in this sense) it would be akin to removing the breast tissue of our infant daughters because there is a risk of breast cancer.
My boys too were circumsized, in a hospital, with general anesthetic. It was wrong. It was cruel and I will be sorry for the rest of my life that I did not heed to spiritual promoting (shouting) allowed the influence of others to override what I new to be best for my babies and did not protect them when they needed me.
This. Practice. Needs. To. Stop.
FGM is another topic altogether. I am talking about this for what it is. And it is wrong. We do not have the right to make choices for our children's bodies when their lives and safety are not in jeopardy.
Post a Comment