My son has his foreskin, the whole damned thing. He is intact. Wake you up? Still with me? He is uncircumcised. We chose not to have him cut. Or rather, we chose to leave him alone. It was a decision that runs counter to American culture - we seem to prefer the snip - but is in keeping with the rest of the world.I was circumcised - twice. I was born in a time when it was standard to chop at an infant boy's foreskin, like formula feeding. All red-blooded, newborn, American, males got cut back then. Most still do, though formula is frowned upon. Apparently, my circumcision didn't take. At the age of nine I remember being called downstairs one night so that my new stepfather, a medical student, could examine me. After a quick perusal it was determined that more slicing was required - I don't know why as I wasn't involved in the discussions. A couple of weeks later I was in the hospital going under the knife, my stepfather assisting. The week that followed, with my boyhood wrapped in gauze and tape, was painful and embarassing. It didn't leave emotional scars - it wasn't that traumatic - but as I grew older I felt I had been left out of a decision that would affect me for the rest of my life. When it came time for us to have kids I decided - we decided - that if we had a boy he wouldn't have it done at all.
When we interviewed pediatricians before his birth (yes, you should interview them and choose one with whom you have common ground), we asked where they stood on circumcision. If they favored it, we didn't favor them. We ended up with one who would perform it if asked but generally agreed with the American Academy of Pediatrics, that it is essentially cosmetic surgery and any benefits of circumcision are balanced by the risks. Uncircumcised males run a higher risk of penile cancer but the overall rarity of that makes any increase insignificant (more men die of breast cancer than penile cancer, but there are no demands for neonatal male mastectomies). A questionable possiblity for a higher incidence of UTIs can be overcome with good hygiene and the recent news of higher HIV infection rates in the uncircumcised is pointless if you teach your boys to use a condom. Circumcision can lead to complications, usually bleeding or infection, in 1 out of 200 cases. Seriously, would you have your kid go under the knife for something cosmetic with those kinds of risks?Americans do it more than anyone else. British circumcision rates are about 1 in 10, Canadian, 3 in 10. We seem to stand alone in our desire for cut males. There are of course, cultural and religious reasons to cut and that is understandable. It just seems unnecessary for the general population, however.
There are groups that actively fight against circumcision, frequently equating it to the practice of female circumcision found in some areas of Africa. There is even an attorney who specializes in circumcision law (talk about a niche). I can't get that worked up about it. It 's a parents' call and should remain so.
My boy doesn't notice the difference, yet. I used to bathe with him as it was easier than bending over the tub. Occasionally, I will still get in the tub with him at his request, although it's splashfest and a little crowded now. The other night as we shared a bath, I found him staring at my penis. It was curious and after a while I asked him what he was looking at. He paused for a moment longer and then said in a tone approaching awe, "It so big." That was funny but I also noticed he made no mention of the other difference between his and mine. One of the arguments in favor has always been that boys want to look like their fathers, but I'm going bald and have a paunch and he hasn't carb-loaded or asked me to shave his head. It's nonsense.
My son will notice someday. Probably in the locker-room at school. He may feel self-conscious or even take some shit for his foreskin. He may even, one day, resent us for not having had him circumcised - in a discussion about this once, daddytypes said jokingly that my boy would never get laid in america - but when the risks and benefits are a coin toss I just can't justify a surgical procedure for which he was never even privy to the conversation, let alone offered his consent.
An addendum: This post attracted attention yesterday, particularly from an old friend. She was infuriated by groups that equate Female Genital Mutilation and Male Circumcision. In an effort to explain their reasoning to my friend, but not necessarily to defend them, I was forced to do a lot of research and a lot of thinking on the issue. I have come to the conclusion that when I said above that I can't get that worked up about the comparison, I was wrong. There is a comparison. They are in the same league. They are analogous. I am not the only one who thinks this. And rest assured, many of the others who think they are analogous are indeed, endowed with a clitoris.
The Canadian Children's Rights Council
The International Child's Rights Information Network stands opposed to MGM, equating it with FGM.
Doctors Opposing Circumcision have produced a document demanding all human rights laws be extended to children and equate MGM to FGM
Jacqueline Smith of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights produced this document arguing that MGM is a violation of Human Rights and equivalent to FGM.
Anthropologist Kirsten Bell, writing in Medical Anthropology Quarterly, describes the remarkable disconnect between the West's abhorence of FGM and acceptance of MGM. The abstract is here.
Also from Medical Anthropology Quarterly, A Rose By Any Other Name, which explores the double standard applied to FGM and MGM.
The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project offers a table pointing out the similarities between FGM and MGM, including justifications, physical damage, and their respective cultures' acceptance.
The group No Harm sees both acts as violence against children.
The abruptly named Foreskin.org includes an article originally printed in Mothering magazine that points up the financial incentives for continuing with MGM.
A History of Circumcision makes the comparison between FGM and MGM, finding both to be abhorent.
And lastly there is: Erroneous Belief Systems Underlying Female Genital Mutilation in Sub-Saharan Africa and Male Neonatal Circumcision in the United States: a Brief Report Updated, by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, and Presented at The Third International Symposium on Circumcision, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, May 22-25, 1994.
There are others as well, but this list should suffice.
No one is minimizing the horror of FGM by making a comparison to MGM. But as we sit here in the west, almost half of the newborns in this country are having part of their genitalia cut away without their permission and for purely aesthetic reasons or because "it's what we've always done." If most of the boys in this country had their pinkys removed shortly after birth while girls in Africa were getting all of their fingers removed, we would deplore both - demand a stop to both - and no one would be spending their time arguing how much worse one was relative to the other. Children, boys and girls, are getting mutilated, because of their cultures' ideas of normal, or good hygiene. It is time to put a stop to it.
I really have become, it seems, The Intactivist.
8 comments:
I have to point out that male circumcision is not even remotely analogous to so-called female circumcision. Circumcised males can have normal sex lives and reproductive function. Victims of female sexual mutilation have almost no chance of normal sex lives and have a very high incidence of reproductive complications. I know it wasn’t your point but the tendency of many to equate male circumcision with female genital mutilation infuriates me.
Right there with you, girl. That's why I wouldn't use that line of reasoning.
Not to defend those that swing that argument, but I have heard a few rational folks that use it and, though they fully agree with you as regards functionality, their point, as explained to me, is that both acts are mutilations by definition.
From American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary:
mu·ti·la·tion (mytl-shn)
n.
Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body.
Though the clitorectomy is far more radical and obviously more brutal, they are both removing otherwise healthy parts of children to meet a cultural standard and doing so without the consent of the patient. Since the AAP has determined that circumcision is nothing more than cosmetic surgery it meets the criteria, both by definition and by cultural standard, for mutilation.
The rise in the popularity of circumcision among gentiles in this country a century and a half ago was because it was believed, incorrectly, to curb masturbation desires. In other words the object was to prevent pleasure, which is of course the exact reasoning used for the clitorectomy; both were used to remove sexual appetite. So, male circumcision actually is "remotely analogous to so-called female circumcision" in that respect, as well.
Again, not defending the analogy, just pointing out its reasoning.
I'm not saying circumcision is not mutilation, I'm saying it doesn't approach the damage done by female genital mutilation. They're not even in the same league and anyone who would suggest otherwise probably does not possess a clitoris.
Like I said, I think we're on the same side of the fence on this.
I just believe that no mutilation should take place to any child. I don't believe it's an either/or situation.
try this site:
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.php
Up With Foreskins!
Our little Lux is also intact. Our doc, who's been in the biz 30 yrs, assured us that these days the tide is swinging the other way (at least in our neck of the woods). He said that 7 to 8 out of 10 of his newborn patients were remaining intact per parental wishes.
Regarding that quaint Rockwellian bathroom recognition-of-difference-moment-slash-question, he shrugged and said, "So what are you going to tell him? Easy. You'll tell him that you didn't let them chop his wee-wee like they chopped yours. Trust me, he'll be forever grateful."
hey, im glad to hear you left your son intact. you mention how you want him to have the choice, but don't all babies deserve that choice? so why do you suggest it should be a parents choice at all?
now, i am not silly enough to suggest FGM is ANYWHERE near the same level as male circumcision. its a hundred times worse, especially considering the conditions its usually performed under.
however, many of the reasons that male circumcision are justified, are the same reasons that other cultures use to justify circumcising their girls.. the similarities ARE there, even thought its clearly much worse (by far) when FGM is performed.
although there are LESS severe forms of FGM that are almost identical to male circumcision (and some less severe!)... however, i don't think its EVER okay.
anyways, nice article! im glad you decided to write it! :D
Banks,
If our boys ever end up in the same locker room they won't feel alone, Brothers In Foreskin.
It's great to read that you have left your son intact; he is a lucky boy to have such thoughtful parents. I am certain that if more parents took the time to research this as carefully as you have circumcision would quickly end here in the US.
One thing you always need to remember is that circumcision is a pernicious practice and by just looking at the history of the practice over the last 100 years or so you'll see that it has very much been a whack-a-mole kind of thing. Someone proclaims a benefit only to be disproved sometime later.
I agree with your addendum and I don't see why boys can't be given the same respect and protection as girls in this respect.
On the bright side it does seem that more and more parents are looking hard at this and forgoing circumcision; slowly we are learning what most of the rest of the world already knows; there is no indication for routine circumcision. Congratulations and good job.
Post a Comment