Baby Boys

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.