The act of circumcision as a non religious procedure was introduced in the 19th century by Dr. John Harvey Kellogg as a way to stop masturbation. He said, "A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind...” The United States and Canada are the only countries in the world that perform routine circumcisions. I have to quote Joe Cortez, an avid blogger on this topic, because I just couldn’t have said it better myself, “Circumcision of infants is forced cosmetic surgery. The same merit as a tattoo, piercing or rhinoplasty. The foreskin is not a genetic anomaly, nor is it a congenital deformity. The foreskin is a normal, healthy piece of tissue found in all newborn males at birth. The foreskin is not “extra skin,” but standard equipment. Without any medical indication present, infant circumcision is the forced amputation of normal, healthy tissue. It is deliberate pain and injury inflicted on the genitals of a healthy individual male.”
Believe me, I’ve heard and considered ALL of the arguments for circumcision. In fact, I had to do a research paper in college supporting it. It was one of my hardest assignments ever because there just simply isn’t any valid medical research to back the need for routine circumcision. Here are the three basic arguments supporters will give:
1. The circumcised penis is cleaner and more hygienic. To which I say, WHAT?! Since when do we chop off parts of our bodies to avoid having to clean them? When my teeth are dirty I brush them I don’t pull them out. Also, a vagina takes a whole heck of lot more work to maintain and keep clean and fresh, but we don’t cut off baby girl’s labia to facilitate cleaning. Please! We live in a world with soap and water and the ability to shower daily. Why do people continue to hold on to the notion of cleanliness to validate genital mutilation? Both of our son's foreskins are intact, and we have never had any problems keeping them clean. In fact we were instructed to let it be, there is no need to pull back the foreskin and clean it. That is something they will do when they become sexually active or start
2. It reduces the risk of urinary tract infections. First of all UTI’s are extremely rare in males. 1 in 125 is the statistic I read. So we’re going to mess with the genitals of 125 boys in order to decrease the chance that one of them might at some time in their life get a UTI which is very treatable and lasts two days? Doesn’t make sense.
3. It reduces the risks of AIDS and other STD’s. Do you know any infants having sex that this would affect? Not me. Besides, condoms are the only way to significantly reduce those risks anyway. If a man’s going to have casual sex and not wear a condom he’s putting himself at great risk whether he’s circumcised or not. Interestingly enough, The US has the highest circumcision rate in the world and also one of the highest Aids rate.
4. The worst reason of all, but probably the most common is; it’s tradition; it looks better; I want my son to look like his dad / brothers etc. When I’ve talked to people that is often time what it boils down to for them. I know people who would look down on a mother who pierced her infant daughter’s ears but think nothing of having her son circumcised. To justify circumcision in this way with all of our education and resources makes us no better then tribes in Africa performing female circumcision with rusty blades or sharp rocks. I know that is so hard to hear, but tell me how it’s not true.
Even if you have been convinced that there are minor health benefits, those perceived benefits are nothing compared to the risks involved. There are risks as rare and severe as botched jobs resulting in castration or the much more common meatal stenosis , which could affect 1 in 10 and is there for life unless surgically corrected. I won’t even go into all the sexual effects it could have on a person because that becomes too subjective, but you can image that cutting off the foreskin which holds the majority of a man’s erotic nerves would have some effect on sexual pleasure. And let’s not dismiss all the pain and trauma that the patient suffers. The fact that it is often performed on babies and they can’t recall it in their conscious memory as an adult doesn’t nullify the effects that it has on a person or make it right in any way. I believe that if parents were required to be present when the procedure took place fewer and fewer would continue doing it.
I just want people to wake up and start giving this the attention it deserves. It’s so easy to speak out against female genital mutilation but much harder to look inward at your own society and culture that is still practicing such a barbaric ritual. To use Joe Cortez’s words again “Circumcision is by definition Genital Mutilation. There is no female genital mutilation or male genital mutilation. There is only genital mutilation. That there are other, more severe forms of genital mutilation is irrelevant. As such it is a violation of human rights and all individuals of both sexes are entitled to the same protection under the law. The principle of taking a non-consenting individual, forcing him/her down and cutting up their genitals to conform to a social norm is one and the same.”
Parents please do not do this to you sons. If they want it later in life they can easily have it done. But it is irreversible and is their decision to make. The truth is it is slowly becoming less and less of a norm and by the time your son is an adult he could really resent you for making that decision for him. I could go on and on but I think I've said my piece. Please feel free to dispute me or leave a comment expressing a difference of opinion.
25 comments:
The American Medical Association stated in 1999: "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."
I am a person who fought passionately against this issue for a long time. I put a lot of emphasis on the "look like his peers and father" and "cleanliness" arguments.I really thought I understood the issues behind it until I researched it myself (asking your parents is not research).
This post is absolutely accurate. All cases in favor of this "tradition" are very poor. Very rarely do people think that this is a big deal which I think is very odd and disturbing.
Around the year 1900 circumcision was reintroduced into our culture partly because of the new research that was being done about germs. People became "germ phobic" and of course the penis was viewed as being dirty. Also,as you mentioned in your post, it was related to the cultural view that sexual desire needed to be supressed and eliminated. It sounds crazy because we have progressed so far beyond all this misinformation but these are basically the reasons that started the practice. They have been emphatically debunked.
Culture will tell you one thing about this issue but using your reason will tell you something completely different.
I would challenge all those who still resist this information to research it thoroughly and prove it wrong.
I personally do not support this practice at all and do not even think a doctor should approach a parent about it after birth. What if a doctor came in and asked you "We've found that by removing the tips of baby's fingers they are much less likely to get ingrown figernails. Would you like to proceed with the amputation?"....
manipulative comparison I will admit, but when you get into the real information, you will find that it is not as off base as you might think.
We need to change this flawed tradition by getting out good information. Do not hide behind dumb excuses. Stop now.
I won't argue against your main argument, but will argue against a few points in it. This is in case someone meaner than me comes along who is very pro-circumcision.
I'm fairly confident that your argument that only the US and Canada perform routine circumcisions is false (since I live in a country where it's routinely practiced). I know for a fact they do it in Israel as well as anywhere else where there a lot of Jews (i.e., the USA). Various tribes in Africa also practice it on both boys and girls. Muslims practice circumcision routinely since they're also descended from Abraham. Admittedly, not all Muslim circumcisions are neonatal. It should be noted that Islam is one of the largest and fastest growing religions in every part of the world. As Islam and its influence grows, so will the number of routine circumcisions around the world.
As for the rest of the world not performing circumcisions they don't do it because they've read up on it and made an educated decision. The reason they don't is because of tradition. In the case of Europe, this tradition of not circumcising is often rooted in anti-semitism. I only point this out since you argued that tradition is the worst reason to PERFORM circumcision. How then can tradition be a good reason NOT to perform it, especially when that tradition is based on racism?
I find your medical arguments to be far more convincing, but the information on its prevalence throughout the world is clearly misleading.
You are very articulate, Tyler. You should write editorials, seriously. I loved your argument and I wish I had something intelligent to add to the discussion, but 6 years of college turned my brain to jello. However, I did feel the need to leave this comment as I consider myself something of an expert on this subject, having seen more penises than your average porn star. (I choose not to clarify this comment, it makes me seem mysterious!) One word of advice: baby powder and uncircumsized foreskin do not mix. I urge you not to test me on this point:)
I would like to add my two cents to this debate since I have "known" men who have had the procedure done as infants and those who have never had the procedure done.
I prefer the uncut men. Not to say I haven't had some great intimacy with a "cut" man... but seriously... some of the best sex I've had has been with an uncut man. I sincerely think it had everything to do with him being uncut or uncircumcised to be more correct.
I found that there was more sensitivity and much more pleasure on both of our parts. Mothers and Fathers... I beg of you for the future spouses of your sons... DO NOT CUT YOUR LITTLE BOYS.
I wanted to post this as ANON... because well I don't want to get a bad reputation.... but I guess I just have to think of all of the little boys in the future that I am saving.
Chris- great comment, I should have just asked you to write the blog for me. I am so glad you got so on board with this and was able to put your pride and machismo aside and do the right thing for your sons. You are my hero!
Lori- I forgot about your history as a call girl…ahem… nurse. I’ve never used baby powder on my boys but I’ll keep that in mind. Thanks for the tip.
Jessica- I am so glad you weighed in. Thanks for being brave. I think your comments are very helpful. I’ve seen modern television series (Nip/Tuck and Sex in the City, I’m sure there are more) portraying the intact penis in a negative way when it comes to sex and appearances and that always makes me mad. I know that men cut or uncut will work with what they have, but those who are cut don’t know what they’re missing and it’s not fair for them to deny their sons the opportunity for complete sexual pleasure just because they feel like, “well I’m circumcised and I’m sure I enjoy an orgasm as much as the next guy.”
Dave- Dave, Dave, Dave. You come across as such a know it all. But I love that about you and I hope you never change. I hate to say it, but you don’t have a case, man. Of course I know that circumcisions are performed throughout the world. I meant to say that the United States and Canada were the only countries in the world to perform routine circumcision for non-religious reasons. And that is true. Also Jews and Muslims only remove the very tip where the US and Canada amputate the entire foreskin. As for saying that European nations don’t circumcise because of tradition… I don’t see your point. My point is that you can’t use tradition to justify committing a sin on another human being. People can have many motives good and bad for doing what is right. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s right. Dave I hope that we're good enough friends that I can go where I'm about to go... I don’t want to offend you by getting too personal, but as you are a new father, I’d love to know why you and Lyssa decided to have Christian circumcised and if you feel you made the right choice. You don’t have to answer. I still think you’re awesome. I just think it would be interesting to hear your thoughts. (We're still friends, right?)
Oh, Shannon, we can still be friends, but I think you'd be disappointed at how apathetic I am to this whole issue. I honestly feel circumcision is a parenting decision, and in my opinion, not a terribly important one. I think there are far more pressing issues that determine whether you're a good parent or not: like if you read to your children, or how you discipline them. This is probably because I've met a lot of dudes in my life. A lot. Many who are babies. And I couldn't tell you if any of them are circumcised or not. To be honest, I don't want to know. It might sound selfish, and more importantly crass, but the only dick I care about is my own. So really, my opinion is that new parents should study up on the matter and make an educated decision. It could go either way and it's all the same to me. This is what I was getting at with my example of European tradition. You're coming from the point of view that not circumcising is always the right thing to do, so it doesn't matter why. Whereas I'm saying that making blind, uneducated decisions just to follow the crowd is wrong. At any rate, in reading up on it here's what we came up with:
Your blog was filled with lots of reasons why circumcision was unnecessary, but you didn't ever really mention why we should keep the foreskin. I'm sure your main argument for this is that it will lead to better sex since the foreskin is full of nerves. Sexy nerves. The problem is, I haven't been able to find anything besides anecdotal evidence to back this claim up. All the research I've read on the topic says that the foreskin plays absolutely no role in orgasm. Studies that look at men before and after they're circumcised as adults have shown little to no change in the quality of their sex. If anything, having a foreskin could potentially lead to worse sex, since the more sensitive the penis is the faster the man will climax (which is usually a weak climax), leaving his partner in the dust (which is no climax). In fact, some uncircumcised men opt to be circumcised later in life because their penises are too sensitive. I've also read that men who get circumcised later in life report having more oral sex after being cut. At any rate, I am in no way convinced that there is any sexual advantage to keeping the foreskin intact. I think it is a myth, the same as the myth that you pointed out, that they started doing it to keep boys from masturbating (since the research shows that nothing but hellfire is going to stop that).
That I've read the foreskin is an absolutely superfluous body part that has absolutely no function except that there's an outside chance (admittedly, a very outside chance) it could get infected. So comparisons to cutting off the tips of the fingers, though adorably morbid, aren't really equivalent, since our fingernails have an important function. Foreskin is then akin to the tonsils or appendix--parts of the body that don't do anything but can potentially get infected. The only reason they routinely perform circumcisions but don't routinely perform elective tonsillectomies and appendectomies is because they are more complicated procedures than circumcisions. I'm willing to bet though, if removing the appendix was as easy as removing the foreskin then every single baby in the country would have an appendectomy.
I will admit that it is, for most intents and purposes, a purely cosmetic procedure. And yeah, it is more than a little messed that we perform cosmetic surgery on babies. But what if your baby was born with a piece of superfluous skin somewhere outside their swimsuit area? Like a tail. Yeah, that'll do. I know it's incredibly rare, but evolution is weird, and sometimes babies are born with tails. Feel free to disagree that I'm manipulating your logic, but as I understand it, you would say that it would be cruel for the parents to remove the baby's tail simply to keep the child from looking like a FREAK. In reality, I would imagine that the pig-boy's parents would elect to have a cosmetic procedure far more complicated and expensive than circumcision to have it removed.
At any rate, what's done is done and nothing save scotch taping a slice of deli meat onto Christian will change that (are you impressed by my reference to Friends? There is very little on TV here. I've seen that episode at least three times.) I assume we're still friends (although I did just poop all over something that's really important to you).
Thanks, Dave. I agree that this issue doesn't determine whether or not someone is a good parent. And I've no doubt that you and Lyssa are great parents. (Ok, I've had some doubt about you, the whole urge to put your finger through a baby's soft spot thing, but judging from the adorable picture you just posted on your blog Christian is doing just fine.) I guess I can only hope that parents will at least give this as much thought as you and Lyssa did instead of agreeing to it blindly.
If one of my children were born with a genetic abnormality or birth defect that could be easily corrected I’ve no doubt we would proceed with the surgery. But that’s the thing—FORESKIN IS NOT AN ABNORMALITY. IT IS NORMAL. IT IS THE WAY GOD DESIGNED THE PENIS.—
AN INTACT MALE IS NOT A FREAK!!!
When I was doing my research paper supporting circumcision I did read cases where intact males climaxed too fast due to sensitivity, but that was definitely the exception. But either way, I say, let the person whose body it belongs to decide the fate of their genitals. If Topher decides as a teenager that he’d like to be circumcised and he studies up on it and weighs the pros and cons for himself. I will support him 100%.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment. I’m glad that we can debate such a hot topic and still be friends.
Sorry if my warped logic made it sound like I thought foreskin was in someway freakish. You know, I'm gonna be honest. All penises are kinda freaky looking. Cutting off the little guy's sleeping cap isn't a vast aesthetic improvement. I'll admit it's pretty weird that there are people out there who think uncircumcised penises look horrifically freakish. I don't watch the shows Nip/Tuck or Sex in the City, or any shows where they frequently talk about penises for that matter, but I can imagine with how frustrating and annoying it must be for you to hear how it's portrayed in the popular media.
I'll admit, again, that it's pretty messed up to do something to a baby when they're still too little to put in their two cents. I mean, at church, everyone goes crazy at the suggestion of baptizing a baby because the baby doesn't getting any say in the matter. But I suppose there are lots of things parents try to put their kids through without the child's consent. At any rate, I think we had a pretty good debate here and we're still friends. Of course, our boys might not be able to stay friends if they start comparing penises with each other and then whoever is different gets made fun of (and your boys do outnumber mine 2:1). As a general rule, let's just keep our kids from looking at each others' penises.
Okay, I think if I say "penis" one more time than the Qatari government will start blocking your blog, so I better let it be at that.
By "Lyssa said" on that last blog, it was actually Dave writing. This is now Lyssa writing. Are you confused yet?
I have to say that this blog is more entertaining to me than any other media source I can think of. I almost fee like I should have to pay a subscription. You guys are such amazing writers.
Ah, this brings me back to a late night at Zion National Park, sitting around the campfire having a big group argument about this. I'm proud that I was on your side of the argument then - even as your chief opponent at that time was your future husband! :) In fact, it was you who first got me really going on this whole anti-circumcision thing!
Ugh. I've always hated that whole "I want them to look like their daddy" thing. First, do sons and dads often compare penises? And it's not just foreskin that makes a grown man's penis look so different from a small child's. Knowing penises the way I do, I promise you that there is much more jealousy related to size than a presence or lack of foreskin.
I recently read a study where a doctor monitored the brain of an infant going through circumcision. There was a distinct physical change in the baby's brain as soon as the snipping began - you can imagine something so painful would be noticed in your brain's pleasure and pain centers - but what's especially interesting is that the brain never went back to normal after the surgery. So the psychic wounds may be very real and concrete, and long-lasting, even if there is no conscious memory. Ugh, I just wish I could remember where I read that... Google let me down. This is the best I could find: http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn148/NTDWA/Braindamage.jpg
I just wanted to make the comment that just because part of our body is just skin does not mean that it doesn't have a specific function. The fact that the body can adjust so that you don't mind it's absence doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been there in the first place. Even loose skin has purpose. Can you really look at the human body with its layers and layers of complexity and say "You got all that right, but I found something that you obviously didn't intend to be there." It's funny in a way when people look at the body like a jealous designer and talk about how they would have designed it differently.
First off. It seems that the head of your penis is something that was meant to be protected and kept moist. The fact that it can dry out and do just fine doesn't mean that the original conditions were any less ideal. If all you've ever know is your dried up penis your perspective is limited. You don't even know that it's dried up because you have never experienced a moist penis. If you were raised with a moist penis the thought of a dried up penis might seem very unappealing.
Second, the gliding motion of the foreskin causes less friction during intercourse. KY has not always been supplying the human race with its products. But since we seem to have found a better solution I guess it justifies removing parts of our body.
So.... what else can we do without? Maybe with the help of extra strength eye drops we can start removing our eye lids! That could really be "in" for a while and it would be so much easier to get things out of your eye without that eyelid getting in the way. Also, I personally hate all my extra saggy scrotum skin so maybe with the help of some sort of temperature controlling device for my testicles (you know, to make up for the purpose that the skin once had) I can cut all that off as well. Awesome! Man, redefining beauty doesn't complicate life at all!
People are free to do whatever they want to their bodies (I really look forward to people removing their eyelids). BUT IT SHOULD BE THEIR CHOICE! There are some reasons (talking points) that people have to justify circumcision but they are not good enough. Modifying your child's body (not including real abnormalities) is not a parents decision.
Doug, you bring up a great point that I had wanted to mention in my original post regarding sons looking different than their daddies. Topher sees Chris naked all the time and has never seemed concerned about his parts looking different from daddy’s. I think it’s because a grown man’s penis, whether circumcised or not, is so very different from the itty bitty penis of a little boy that Topher just expects it to look different. I think Topher just understands that he has a little boy penis and daddy has a grown up penis. By the time Topher’s old enough that there would be a real comparison I doubt that either one of them would be seeing much of the each other’s junk.
I would love to see that study you read. Sounds very interesting. I have four brothers the oldest two are circumcised and the youngest two are not. It was my second brother’s reaction after he was circumcised that made my mom really look into this issue and opt not to have her future sons circumcised. She’s swears that from the day he was circumcised on he had a different cry.
I remember once talking to my brother Eric about this when my youngest brother overheard and asked what we were talking about. I told him we were talking about circumcision and I had been asking Eric how he felt about not being circumcised. Michael, who is also not circumcised, had no idea what that was and when I explained he got a horrified look on his face and said, “why would parent’s do that to their babies?” He knew that there was absolutely nothing wrong with his penis and couldn’t imaging why anybody would want to change it.
I had forgotten the detail of that Zion’s trip. I remember having the debate but I had forgotten how it really was just you and I against everyone else (mostly Chris) . That’s funny. You always have been a really smart guy! :)
This has been a very informative, interesting and, dare I say, entertaining dialogue. As I read on and on (and on), I was remembering Shannon's relating the details of the Zion's campout. Her passion continues after 10 years!
Shannon, I was going to comment about my four sons, but you already covered it very well. I well reiterate the incident that you mentioned. i had my second son at home, and when he was three days old, his dad took him to the docotr's office for his circumcision. When he arrived home and started a strange crying, I checked for loose pins (yeah, the olden days), or a problem of some kind. . Everything was 'surface fine'. He was miserable the rest of the day, and continued with his strange, new cry.
His familiar cry NEVER RETURNED!
I remember thinking, "What have I done?!?" A week later, there was a news report on the fallacy of circumcision. I cried and cried thinking of what I had purposely chosen to do to my son. I did vow if I ever had another boy I would never, never subject him to that again.
My first boy was brought to me in the hospital with a note attached to his basinetter that said, "Be kind to me, I was circumcised today!" I was never even asked about it!! However, being a new, ignorant mother I just
assumed it was procedure. Thirty years later, it still makes my blood boil to think I had no choice in the matter!
Now, my dad was uncircumcised and pleaded with my mom to please not circumcise their first son. After discussions with his friends, he was positive that his sons would be deprived of a full, sexual life.
However, 'everybody was doing it' and mom felt it important and went with her doctor's advice. One brother ended up with a botched job, and had to have a 'redo'. Mom said it was brutal.
I am so proud of Shannon and Chris for studying, studying and studying and making this important decision on behalf of their sons.
I think I agree strongest with the sentiment that parents must make the decision themselves. However, they ABSOLUTELY MUST make an informed decision. They owe it to their children to study the subject, and make a concientious decision about 'to cut or not to cut'. Do not be a sheep following the trend - never ever mutilate your boys just because "everyone else is doing it!"
Circumcised men have not been known to "cum to quickly... I repeat have not been known to "cum to quickly. I just had to add that in after reading a few comments. haha :)
Thanks, Jess. You are now official this blog's sex expert. Sexpert:)
Robin. I hope that you were just joking about that last comment. Of course we didn't think those thoughts when we were watching your son. Shannon posted that blog long before she volunteered to watch James. It has actually been an issue Shannon has been into for years.
The comparison to African genital mutilation is very emotionally loaded I will admit and I don't think that there is any way that the practice would survive in the climate of our country even as a tradition. I understand why that comment can be so offensive, especially to an amazing parent who loves and protects her children dearly like yourself. The damage inflicted is obviously not as extensive or intentional as the practice in Africa. What is most applicable to us, I feel, is the reason for continuing the practice. No major medical organization in this country is promoting this procedure as necessary. Why are we doing it? It's a good question, and it deserves a solid answer. People repeat the same arguments as though they haven't been disproved. They sound good amongst family and friends who don't know better but take the argument into the realm of professionals and the case is pretty much closed. Doctors obviously aren't trying to hurt boys the way that Kellog recommended. I don't remember any pain from my circumcision that's for sure. Does that justify it? Not hardly. We don't know what they experience exactly. Many studies show that they do experience trauma.
I don't have bad feelings toward anyone that has performed this procedure because it can sound very legit. As Shannon said after we had our sons, we were asked WHEN we were going to perform the circumcision. In that light it seems like it's the medically accepted thing to do. What I do get frustrated with are those people who have not only heard but actually understand these arguments but still perform them anyway.
There is obviously no way to address this issue and bring about change without making some people feel defensive. If it has been performed it's not a big deal. It's in the past. Your kids are obviously fine just as I am. I don't think they have been traumatized. You and Andrew are exceptional parents. There's no doubt about that. Doctors have changed lots of practices as new information becomes more available. I think that we need to be more aware from this point forward. Please don't take any of this as a personal attack. But it is a practice that is embedded in our culture without a good justification. Let me know of any information you have found to the contrary. I debated with Shannon about this for years. There is a lot of pride I had to get over. I kept thinking that I would find some good information to counter these arguments but it never came.
Again the American Medical Association does NOT recommend routine circumcision. Although they are convinced of that stance they recommend "the provision of accurate unbiased information to parents to inform their choice."
I love you dearly Dave and Robin but I am still not convinced that this is as much a non-issue as you guys say. There is always more important things to worry about in life. This is one that we have control over. One that we could easily fix. I'm sorry but I feel you need a damn good reason to perform circumcision and I have not yet heard one.
Let me reiterate. I feel you have successfully argued that circumcision is not medically necessary. However, I still don't feel it's been shown that there are any benefits to not circumcising. Again, based on the literature I've read on the topic, there is no correleation between having a foreskin and better sex. If anyone can find a study that shows such a correleation, please send it my way. Anecdotal evidence will not in anyway suffice since it is unable to isolate circumcision as the only experimental variable.
Whereas you both feel that circumcision for cosmetic reasons is the absolute worst reason to perform it, I don't see a strong argument there. Even though you both are fine with your children being uncircumcised, other parents may be absolutely horrified by how it would look. It may not be a "damn good" reason to you, but I assure it is to them. (Again at this point I'd like to repeat my opinion, that all penises are weird looking). Do they not have the right to feel so? People are very tied up in looks. Even though I don't think overweight women should feel bad about it, they do, and no matter how much I argue otherwise they still have a right to feel unattractive and fat. You brought up people looking down on infant ear-piercing, but guess what, there's no medical reason why they can't have their ears pierced. It's purely a cosmetic choice. Back to circumcision, it all really comes down to who is going to see the penis, which admittedly is a limited group, but from a cosmetic point of view their feelings do matter. It's fairly obvious from the examples given from TV shows that many Americans find uncircumcised penises to be a little offputting. Whether you agree or not isn't the point. The point is that cosmetic issues do matter to people. It may not make it right, but it does mean they should have the option.
I will admit that it is very screwed up that the doctor just ASSUMES you're going to have your boy circumcised. Let's face facts, this is a surgical procedure (albeit a simple one) but anytime you're going to have surgery the doctor should sit you down and tell you the pros and cons of having it done. Can we at least agree on that? That the doctor should tell the new parents unbiased information on the matter and let the parents make up their own minds? For that matter, they should do this for all procedures, but they don't (and by the way, I do find it offensive that this procedure would be done without letting the parents know). For instance, when I had to have a cavity filled my dentist asked if I'd rather have a white composite or traditional metal filling. I wasn't told until after, that white composite fillings done in the back of the mouth run the risk of infection resulting in a root canal. Had he told me before, I gladly would have told him to use metal, but instead the same guy ended up doing my root canal. I'm certain that if doctors told new parents the facts, many would choose not to circumcise who otherwise would have. Others, of course, would not be affected.
Ultimately, you still have not convinced me that this is as important an issue as you claim it is. I see it as similar to say, breastfeeding, which people are very passionate about on both sides (my mother for instance, who continually gives my sister-in-law a hard time for not breastfeeding). Again, I don't think it's going to matter all that much either way. I'm fine with your belief that it is wrong, but that doesn't mean it should completely be done away with. I feel that abortion is wrong and wouldn't advise anyone to have one, but I still recognize that it serves a necessary function in society and should be allowed. People aren't very educated on that either and especially some of the psychological and physiological effects the procedure can have. But of course, with any flashpoint issue, those who are for it aren't interested in telling you why you shouldn't. All I'm arguing is that people should be allowed to make up their own minds, but they need to be given the facts beforehand.
Although actually, I just read a study from the 1980s that showed that even when counseled with all the facts, most people just go with their gut on this one. So now I don't know what to believe.
Dave. You are very well spoken and I have to say that we do actually agree on some things. There should be more communication between doctor and parents. I have perhaps stressed too much that my opinion is always the right one in every circumstance. i certainly hope that I don't come off as a "hater." I just think that there is value in swaying or at least challenging popular opinion on this matter.
I understand your argument to be that people have a "right" to hate themselves and their bodies if they choose. I agree. Women should be able to hate themselves when they don't conform to unreal fantasies about what the female body "should" look like. I agree. People have a right to improve upon the parts of their body of which they are ashamed; that they feel set them apart. I probably would if I had the money. These emotions are real and should be validated. Corrective procedures should be available for people who want to make these changes. A parent also has the right to be ashamed of their child's body. To remember the characteristics that possibly made them insecure at times in their life and try to save their child from that experience. A baby is an interesting thing because it is a potential free thinking individual but is, for the mean time, a belonging of the parent. It can't make decisions so the parent must make them for it. The parent has the right to use their own wisdom to make the best decisions for their child. The child can't give any input and for that reason we have to be understanding of parents. They usually have their children's best interests in mind. These are all "rights" which I don't think should be taken away.
You said only a few people ever see the penis and it is their opinion that "matters." I still disagree. The only person who's opinion matters is the owner of the penis. One person. Why should we assume that they are going to be so troubled? Who's going to teach them that they should be troubled about this? What about teaching people to be happy with who they are? Do we as parents really think we are going to be able to remove this obstacle entirely from someone's life? Will they not be faced with the same problem in a different context at some other point? Should we assume that our child is going to share the same view of the uncircumcised penis as us? They might. Not everyone shares this opinion however and we don't know what our child's opinion on genital beauty is going to be.
The decision to breast feed cannot be postponed until you are older. The parents have to make that choice, but circumcision absolutely can be postponed. I know an uncircumcised adult who would never think of having his foreskin removed. How many more would like to have had the freedom to decide for themselves?
Our baby Max was born with a large purple birthmark wrapping around his rib cage. When he came out it was one of the first things I noticed. I immediately thought "that's going to be one of those things he has got to deal with." If the doctor told me he could remove it without any pain or possibility of consequence I'm sure I would have done it (The same would go for a tail). If the doctor told me that there was some risks and that he was going to experience some degree of pain and tenderness for a few days and that he might lose some sensitivity to touch I might hesitate. Maybe I shouldn't be making this decision for him especially since keeping the birthmark poses no real threat or inconvenience to him.
So I guess, to sum things up, my question to you is why do you think the parent should make a decision that the child is capable of making himself when he's older (especially when there are other risks to weigh and consider)?
I think most of what I've been arguing has to do with the title of this blog, where you and Shannon claim "there is no question." I'm mostly just pointing out that even though there is no question in your minds it's very clear that a lot of people are passionate about it on both sides and that in fact it is a huge question. And simply put, your blog has not been able to provide me with evidence that one side is completely right and we should put the argument to rest. I'm sure that was hardly your intention, as it would be way too ambitious to begin with.
With that said, the question you pose really is your best argument, and I have definitely been dodging the answer on this post. As I understand it you have nothing against circumcision, but your beef comes with doing it to a baby who cannot give their consent. You bring up that the procedure doesn't have to be done neonatal, which is true, although right after birth is the ideal time for it. Having just gone through the trauma of giving birth, newborns have high levels of various pain-controlling hormones and endorphins and recover more quickly than an adult for the procedure. When performed on older males, the procedure is more complicated, ten times more expensive, and they have to put sutures on it to heal. Does that still mean my son will have wanted it done without his consent? I can't say. You know a guy who's uncircumcised and wouldn't ever want to be cut. But on the other hand, I don't ever think to myself "Gosh, I wish my parents hadn't done this to me!" That's probably why I'm not terribly passionate about this issue. If I felt robbed, then I'm sure I would be strongly against it, but since I don't, I find myself comfortablely in the middle.
Oh, I'm dodging the issue again, aren't I? Okay, here's the best I can do. I read one doctor (who admittedly is very pro-circumcision) that compared it to vaccinations, which I realize is another polemic issue with some people but I'm very much for vaccinating my children. Now, as you have correctly pointed out the possible infections that the foreskin can get when they are babies are statistically low in general. I think I read about 1% for UTI. Certainly later in life, more health problems can arise. Some of these are statistically unlikely such as 1200 men per year for penis cancer (which results in a cringe worthy penectomy. The disease itself is so rare, I can barely make an argument with it. I really just mentioned it because I wanted to say penectomy). Others can be more statistically relavent, such as that uncircumcised men are 3 times more likely to carry human papillomavirus which can also cause cervical cancer in his female partner. Regarding HIV and AIDS, yes, a condom is the best way to prevent that, but at the same time it is noteworthy that circumcision has been found to be just as effective the current medications are at keeping it from spreading. Is it worth doing a procedure though for a handfull of diseases that are unlikely? In your mind, the answer is clearly no, which is fine, but I say yes. We vaccinate for all sorts of diseases that are incredibly unlikely. The chances of my son catching smallpox are non-existant in the United States (of course, with my current work situation, we're not going to be spending a whole of time in the United States). Nevertheless, I would much rather have my son inocculated (which is also a painful and traumatic, albeit less bloody, experience) then to run the risk of him ever getting smallpox. It has been shown that circumcision can prevent are greatly reduce potential health problems throughout life. The only question is whether the cons outweigh these pros, which again are statistically unlikely. The only true risk when done properly with anaesthesia is that the job might be botched. It is worth noting, however, from the statistics I read, that the chances of botching a circumcision are lower than the chances of a baby contracting UTI. If you consider it the same as a vaccination, which also are irreveserable and better taken care of during infancy, I think it is a reasonable decision for a parent to make.
As you point out parents have to make decisions for their children, and honestly, until they're around ten, they make ALL the decisions for their children. Yes, some of these don't matter very much, like what clothes you dress them in. Others are going to have a huge effect on the child and are completely irreversible, like where you raise them, what language they learn from you, what morals they learn from you. I honestly just view circumcision as one of several parenting decisions that made me who I am which I didn't get any say in the matter. I think we all look back at our childhood and see lots of things we wished our parents had done differently. Again, I've never resented my parents for having circumcised me (although, it would be interesting to conduct a study to see how men feel about their penises, i.e., if they wish they had been circumcised or not). I do think about how they never put me in piano lessons or how my dad hardly ever played baseball with me, which in my mind are far more important. I'm sure you won't find this answer very satisfactory, but then again I am not convinced that circumcision is sexual mutalation or a violation of human rights. The AMA, which you quoted earlier, doesn't claim that either. They simply don't recommend it as a routine procedure. Since I just see it as one of a thousand things I'm going to do without my son's consent and not a major issue, it's obviously easy for me to do. For crying out loud, he was born in the Middle East. His passport and birth certificate are going to forever say Qatar on it. That could have some fairly undesirable social effects back home. And he can't change it, no matter what he does. I didn't have to come here, I suppose it could have been prevented. But it was a very good career move for me, and I hope he'll understand and come to appreciate it, just the same as I hope he'll come to appreciate his dried-out foreskinless cock.
Okay, bad example. Lyssa just told me they don't vaccinate smallpox anymore since it is completely eradicated. So let me go back and say mumps instead.
Also, sorry for saying cock at the end there. I thought I was being funny.
The American Cancer Society states that the current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recomended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer. They encourage people to concentrate on the main risk factors which include poor hygiene, having unprotected sex with mutiple partners, and cigarette smoking.
As for the risks of getting cervicle cancer which has been transmitted by a man with HPV Castellsagué, one of the major researchers claiming that there is a connection said "…it would not make sense to promote circumcision as a way to control cervical cancer in the United States, where Pap smears usually detect it at a treatable stage."
Circumcision studies show lots of positive and negative things about insignificant numbers of people. Maybe it's not as torturous to infants as I have put forth. Maybe most men could care less whether or not they have been circumcized.
This argument is becoming cyclical in my opinion. Maybe it's one of those issue that you could argue forever. What it comes down to is whether your approach is to favor preventitive measures even though there is no hard evidence to support them or to be overly cautious until there is overwhelming evidence to back up the practice. It's in a gray area and since the subject matter is the welfare of children people are bound to be passionate about it.
I think you have represented yourself very well. The best thing is for parents to be informed.
This is a wikipedia link that might be a good start for anyone who is interested in reviewing this information for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Conditions_affecting_the_prostate
WOW! I wish I had read this thirty years ago when I thought circumcision was not a choice but a law. I went happily along with the procedure with my first son because I didn't know any better. By the time my second son was born, three children later, I knew I had a choice. I didn't have son #2 'circed' in the hospital because I had some serious objections to it. In fact, since my pediatrician didn't have priviliges at the hsopital I had chosen, we were assigned one, who, by the way, refused to do circumcisions. I think it was a sign. Also, the day after my son was born I was sitting in my hospital bed watching Dr. Phil. The topic? Circumcision. Another sign. I was facinated by everything that was said because I was positive I didn't want that for my baby. I agreed whole-heartedly that tradition and cleanliness were poor reasons for mutilation, as were all of the other arguments for this horrendous practice. When I took my baby in for his one-month check-up I was given a new reason for circumcision: It's important for him to match at least one other male in the family. And, yes, I was dumb enough to buy it. I wish I could take it back. I wish I had more information. I wish I had a backbone. The only thing I can do now is to inform others about the realities of circumcision. Traditions are good. But not this one
Post a Comment