It's War! The Circumcised vs The UnCircumcised

Often if a baby has serious medical issues at birth circumcision is not recommended so as not to cause any further trauma.

 

This was my husbands reasoning as well... I called shananigans and told him to go get his junk pierced then come back and we could discuss it again.

We found other things to fight about after that.

Funny thing though, we had our baby the same time as a big group of our friends. Four boys and two girls were born the fall of '04. None of the boys were cut. Toddlers being toddlers, they some times run around without clothes on, so all my daughter has ever seen is boys "au naturel". My nephew, OTOH, is done. SIL was changing his diaper and my daughter asked her what was wrong with his peepee.

I almost died laughing.

 

I'm sorry. What exactly is shananigans about wanting your son to look like you again? Just curious.

 

While I can't speak for cjm, the 'look like dad' line has always been mystifying to me.
a.) why is it important?
b.) how often does one expect the comparison to be made?
c.) if it does become a topic of conversation, where is the problem investing less than 5 minutes in explaining the differences?

 

Fair point. On the other hand, why does it matter if that's how the father feels? Why should he have to justify that particular desire? It's perfectly acceptable to dismiss those feelings simply because you don't understand them?

What exactly is the harm being done other than the short period of pain that the baby experiences that he'll have no recollection of by the time he's old enough to discuss it?

 

Wanting a son to look like him isn't really such a big deal, I guess. But let's remember, this IS surgery, which carries the risks that any surgery does. Add to that it's painful and usually merely a cosmetic procedure. In the vast majority of cases, there is simply no medical reason to get it done. It's cosmetic surgery for babies unless it's done for religious or medical reasons. And how often do father and son really whip out their penises to compare? It's just never been an issue in our house, and we have three "cut" males and one "natural" male. Again, the only jokes are about size. And I've given up on thinking I'll stop that. That seems to be the nature of the male beast.

Wouldn't it be rather like a mother wanting her daughter to have her nose altered so that she'll "look like mom." Luckily, my husband finally agreed with me and now he'll try to talk people into at least researching the subject rather than just automatically getting it done. I really don't think appearance should be a justification for unnecessary surgery. The more I researched it, the more convinced I became. I recommend a book called The Joy of Uncircumcising: Exploring Circumcision - History, Myths, Psychology, Restoration, Sexual Pleasure, and Human Rights by Jim Bigelow.

 

This actually turned into a pretty interesting thread.

I'll accept this explanation.

 

For whatever reason, this infuriates me. Does it not occur to you that a lifetime decision is being made when a baby boy is circumcised? It isn't something they can choose for themselves, or at least not at that age. When he's old enough to discuss it, as you say, it'll be too late to have any say in the decision.

I don't think I've ever posted in a thread like this before, but this post was too much not to speak on.

 

Parents make lifetime decisions for kids all the time, KW. That's actually their job. You may not agree with them, but it's still up to them. Circumcision is just one decision in a series of decisions that parents make about how they want to raise their child. Oh. And of all those decisions, circumcision has a pretty insignificant impact on that child's life, in general.

But please continue to be infuriated.

 

But you presented it callously, as if you couldn't (and maybe you can't) understand the fuss over it. It's a big decision, regardless of how routine it is in some parts of the world.

It's also a decision that cannot be undone or turned back from, whereas some parental decisions are more subjective and/or can be handled differently by a child (like where to live as an adult) when they get older.

 

I don't see what the fuss is over. People choose to have kids even though they can't provide for them, but I don't see any outcry over that. On the contrary, more often than not, we talk about how unfortunate it is. Is that decision not more callous and detrimental to the child's future than snipping off a useless piece of skin at a time in the child's life when the child has no chance of recalling the event? What about choosing to raise a child in the home of an alcoholic? Or spoiling your child and giving them no sense of responsibility and accountability?

My point is that this is minor, albeit unnecessary, surgery that has an incredibly low risk of complication. If it is part of a family's culture, why should they feel like they have to defend their decision because it makes a few people squeamish? Personally, I'd rather focus my ire at people who raise their children in situations that are...you know...actually abusive and detrimental to the future of the child.

 

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, so I won't waste my time discussing it with you.

 

My son is circumcised, and really... I can't forsee him being even remotely angry about it at any point in his life.

I have to agree with Brian... deciding whether to circumsise is easily the least damaging parenting decision that can ever be made. There are faaaaaaaaaaar worse dicisions parents make.

 

I have no idea what I'm talking about? What expertise exactly does one need to be able to talk intelligently about this topic and still disagree with your perspective? Be male? Check. Have been circumcised? Check. Be a father of a boy? Check.

What exactly do you know about this subject that you think I don't?

You really poked holes in my argument there by going for the "you're too dumb to talk about this" approach. Your tolerance of other people's attitudes is amazing. Or does tolerance only apply when people agree with you?

 

Provided you're the child's biological father, he should already look abit like you... Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously though (and this is my beef) why subject an infant to an unnecessary and EXTREMELY painful procedure. You wouldn't subject your daughter to Female Circumcision would you? Of course not, you'd be thrown in jail. Why is it okay to do it to a boy?

It's the forceable removal of a normal and healthy part of the human body, plain and simple. If it becomes a medical issue (ie. adhesions/infections), then deal with it. At least then the child can be properly anesthetized and have some sort of pain relief afterwards.

Honestly... if it ain't broke, why fix it?

 

Honestly, I don't see what the fuss is all about. It's just something that the parents have to decide. It's under their jurisdiction, and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm circumcised. I don't really care either way.

Pfft.

 

I find it a bit puzzling that it's simply considered a normal thing to do - and I have a muslim dad who didn't insist it's done to me. Actually, why would it be a normal "it's just what we do" thing when you're not islamic or jewish? Or live in the desert.
Are the later medical benefits really enough to be a reason? Or the sexual ones, for that matter? Otherwise they seem to be only used as a secondary justification for a procedure that's done for entirely different reasons.


It might be a somewhat schizophrenic position to find it okay as religious traditions, but... you can't argue against religion.

 

It's ok because female circumcision and male circumcision are two completely different things--the former permanently debilitates the child's sexual functionality, while the latter has absolutely no lasting negative effects. Surely that distinction is not insignificant.

As for the rest, us human beings are complex individuals that do things for lots of reasons, not all of which are rational. It's all well and good for people to choose not to circumcise their boys because that's the conclusion they draw that's best for their family. That said, if a parent makes an informed decision and decides that the benefits, however small, outweigh the costs, however large, what business is it of anybody's?

In your particular case, I only asked the question because it seemed to me that your husband's feelings on the matter, however ridiculous you might think them, didn't matter and I was curious why you felt so strongly about it, which you've explained. Thanks.

It's hard to describe the emotional experience of becoming a father and seeing your son for the first time. I won't pretend that the decision to circumcise your son is necessarily rational, but it is certainly an important one. Given the low impact that such a decision is likely to have on the child's future, I genuinely don't understand why anyone would choose to be judgmental about it.

 

You simply don't know the medical facts about circumcision, Souderwan, which is why I was (and am) so dismissive of you. I think it's the height of hypocrisy to be against female circumcision and be okay with male circumcision. There are a ton of blood vessels and nerve endings in the foreskin, which you seem either ignorant about or just don't care about one way or the other. With that in mind, why should I pay attention to anything else you have to say on the subject?

I don't believe anyone can fairly be against circumcision for females and also be okay with it for males. Either you're against both or you're okay with both. Both are mutilations of what nature designed, and both are highly unnecessary. I can tell you from experience that having a toenail permanently removed lessens the chance of infection on that toe, but I don't see anyone advocating for the removal of single or multiple toenails for anyone.

Regardless, the choice for circumcision should be one for each male child (or female, for that matter) to make when they are adults. As so few opt for it when they are adults, that should tell you something about its necessity.

No male child of mine will ever be circumcised. It is wrong, unnecessary and just plain barbaric.

 

Josh. With all due respect, you have no idea what I do or don't know. Last I checked, you are certainly no more educated than I am on the subject. You also are demonstrably ignorant of the facts if you think that male and female circumcision are equivalent. Of course there are similarities in that they are both surgical procedures on the genitals. But, as I pointed out (and you chose to ignore), the impact of each is markedly different. One produces lifetime sexual dysfunction that can only be mitigated (but not completely repaired) by additional surgery, while the other most assuredly does not.

That being said, I appreciate you pointing out my hypocrisy. I always enjoy being lectured by people who eschew tolerance in one breath and demonstrate a complete lack of it in the same breath. It makes me chuckle.

In any case, I'll choose not to be as dismissive of your point of view as you are of mine. You're entitled to your opinion. You'd do well to recognize it as such.

 

Senny, do you run your posts through babelfish before posting them here?

 

The fact that the parents have the legal right to do it doesn't necessarily mean that they have the 'right' to do it. And for most parents who have the procedure performed on their child, I'd imagine that it's not so much a decision as simply following along with the herd. You're permanently altering your child's body in a way that they might not want once they're old enough to decide for themselves. I also don't agree with piercing a child's ears. Would it be okay to tattoo 'I love Mom and Dad' on their chest? Nose ring?

That said, female circumcision is worse than male circumcision just like torture is worse than beating someone up just because you feel like it.

 

There's two things I hate:

People who are intolerant of other peoples' culture... and the Dutch.

Josh, that's about the most pig-headed thing I've heard you say since you were trying to espouse tolerance and anti-hypocrisy in the rest of your posts. I am against mutilation as a form of control devoid of spiritual enlightenment. Judaism obviously has a circumcision as a portion of the basis of the religion (it signifies the covenant with G-d). Other cultures have other forms of ritualized mutilation (tattoos, piercing, etc.).

I don't know one that has a female circumcision component to it -- the only times I hear of it are for male-control over female populations, but I can't say for certain that they don't exist.

Out of curiosity, are you also against parents who allow their children of a non-adult capacity to make important decisions such as body modification (tattoos, piercings, etc.) or engage in risky sexual or substance-based decisions?

 

I can certainly see where you're coming from. However, I'd be careful about assuming that people who have the procedure performed on their child are simply "following along with the herd". I have quite a few friends who have boys and every single one of them that I've talked to about these kinds of things had their own personal reasons for circumcising their child. Virtually no one I know of thinks about it for the first time when asked at the hospital.

And I'd agree that I wouldn't personally think it was ok for a parent to pierce their baby's ears or tattoo something inappropriate on the child's chest, etc. That said, I also don't think it's ok to have a child that you're in no financial position to raise, either. There are some things I just have to accept as inevitable in a free society. And given the alternative, I think I'll stick with the whole freedom thing.

 

The alternative being not allowing people to needlessly mutilate infants? I'm not seeing a problem.


And as for the male circumcision = female circumcision thing... er, no.