The night I learned I was pregnant, my unsuspecting Irish fella was out with a friend of his whose wife had just learned she was expecting. They toasted this news into the wee hours, and my Irish fella spent that night dreaming about babies, specifically that he had twin daughters.
Upon learning the next morning that I, too, was pregnant, he continued dreaming about having twin girls, one dressed in blue and one in yellow. The dreams were detailed and recurring, and we began to believe in the girls, and had picked out perfect names for them. An eight-week ultrasound eliminated the possibility of twins, but we still leaned very heavily toward ‘girl’. It wasn’t a preference—just a feeling.
When we went for the 20-week ultrasound, the first image we got was that of our baby yawning. It was incredible to see. The technician took us on a 30-minute gray/blue grainy tour, pointing to and measuring the skull, the lips, the hands, the feet. “Here are the lungs,” she beamed, “and the heart, and the stomach, and here is the liver, and here—” she drew an arrow onscreen—“are the balls!”
And indeed, there were the balls. This meant we had to rethink our names, but it also meant, for me anyway, that we had to talk about something else.
In the States, although the practice is increasingly questioned, circumcision is still the norm. It’s not something I had made up my mind about, but it’s something I thought we should discuss. But because the Irish fella is ‘unsnipped,’ I assumed his answer to the circumcision question would be absolutely not.
“Absolutely not,” he said, “and don’t be Googling it.”
But I’m a Googler, so of course I Googled. The United States, I learned, is the only country in the world that circumcises the majority of its male infants for non-religious reasons, and I was curious to know why so many parents opted for this.
Many members of the parenting discussion groups I visited online seemed to believe it was better for the baby. But as far as medical benefits, there are none, and the American Academy of Pediatrics has been saying as much since 1971. In fact, no national medical organization in the United States recommends circumcision. Claims that circumcision helps reduce the instance of infection and the spread of STDs are unfounded.
One woman in a pregnancy forum said she was going to circumcise her son because she didn’t want to have to handle his bits in order to wash them. The improbability of avoiding touching your son’s privates while caring for him in the early years aside, this is misinformed. The penis in its natural form is a self-cleaning mechanism, much like a vagina, and it is not true that an uncircumcised penis is more difficult to clean—not in adulthood and not in infancy. In fact, the baby books are very clear on how to care for a newborn’s foreskin: leave it alone.
What I’ve found, both online and in speaking to mothers of sons, is the overwhelming majority of parents lean in favor of circumcision so the baby will “look like daddy.” This seems widely accepted, but it doesn’t hold for me.
These are well-meaning parents, as I believe most are. But the “look like daddy” argument is a self-perpetuating one that ensures the continuation of circumcision while negating medical research that not only dismisses any benefits of the practice, but that actually points to the potential damage—physical and psychological—that can result from it.
I understand that children are wonderfully inquisitive and observant and will notice and ask about the differences between their bodies and their daddy’s (and mommy’s). But on hearing something like, “people used to cut the skin off because they thought it was safer, but now we know that is not true so we didn’t do that to you,” I think most little boys will accept this simple truth rather than have confusion instilled about their masculine identity.
Adults over-complicate, but kids don’t. Explaining my divorce to a small child sounded something like this: “We decided we are better friends when we aren’t married to each other.” It took a little more explaining to grown-ups, but the additional details didn’t really change the core truth of what I’d said to my friend’s six year old. We shouldn’t impose our instinct to over-analyze on children. We should allow them to enjoy a period of life where simpler explanations are acceptable, particularly when they tell us all we need to know.
I can only conclude that we, meaning Americans, circumcise because it’s what we’re used to doing, and because the majority of boys in the States get the snip, a circumcised penis is what we are more accustomed to seeing.
One woman wrote in an online forum that she once saw an uncircumcised penis and it looked like Darth Vader in a turtleneck. She said it was ugly, and worried that girls wouldn’t be attracted to her son. I can’t imagine society accepting elective surgery on the genitals of female babies because we prefer how it looks.
And of course circumcision is not the norm worldwide. According to some statistics, about 60 percent of infant boys are circumcised in the U.S., and Australia is not far behind. Only about 30 percent are snipped in Canada, and figures drop to less than 20 percent in countries elsewhere in the world. I mentioned these numbers to an Australian friend of mine, a circumcised male, who immediately fell into a fit of insecurity about whether Dutch girls think he looks like a freak.
It reminds me of the Dr Seuss story about an island inhabited by two breeds of Sneetch: some have stars on their bellies and are considered vastly superior to those without. The star-less Sneetches obtain a large and fabulously Seussian machine that puts stars on their bellies, prompting the original star-bellied Sneetches to acquire a machine that removes their stars. Chaos ensues: nobody knows anymore whether it’s preferable to have a star or not to have a star.
Of course a star is not a foreskin and a baby is not a Sneetch. The bottom line is that every parent should choose what they think is best for their child. Inform yourself and weigh the pros and cons.
For me, my baby will not be circumcised, not because he’ll be growing up in Europe and not because he’ll look like his daddy if we leave him intact, but simply because it is not necessary.


Salon.com
Comments
Yep. That's why. No real medical reason. Just whack off the most sensitive tissue in a little boy's body in the name of mental health. Also, eat cold whole grain cereals in the morning, that also reduces masturbation. And on that the fortunes of Battle Creek sanitarium owners Dr. Kellogg, Dr. Post, and Dr, Graham made their fortunes.
I chose to not circumcise my son 14 years ago. I worried quite a bit for years, because when he was 4 and in preschool he came home and said, "I don't have a nice pee pee." We talked and it turns out he noticed his was different than another boy's.
So I told him why I made my decision, in a way a 4 year old would understand. He seemed fine, but I still obsessed.
This year is the first year he's taking showers with other boys after football practice. As much as my husband assured me that everything will be fine, that he's not the only one, that little 4 year old lamentation came back to me. So after a few practices I just "How do you feel about the whole shower-with-the-team business?" And he replied, "No big deal. We see each other naked so much now we're used to it. So, ya know, cover what you can and get it done!" He laughed.
So all my worry was for naught. It's not even an issue for him.
I'm Jewish and amazed that people who don't keep kosher or go to temple or much else still hold on to this custom as essential.
If we'd been in the US, where the procedure's common, at least the results would probably have been better. But our son was born in Austria, where this was a pretty exotic procedure -- as much as the doctors congratulated themselves on the job, it looks like butchery to me.
So take that into consideration too -- the rarity of a procedure in the place where you're having it done!
My two cents:
It may not be accurate, but the latest data in the US has circumcision of newborns in hospitals falling from about 56% in 2007 to about 33% in 2009. Ye ha. It is not the norm to do it anymore in the States.
The follow cut daddy thing not only continues the cycle of penis cutting, it also entails that those that don't know what the sensation is all about aare deciding to remove it from another human. Can anyone imagine people with only black and white sight deciding to remove color sight from children? The parts provide protection, but more importantly, the parts provide PLEASURE. The cut men of the US don't know what the about 20000 fine touch and stretch nerves feel like. They feel great.
Given that this operation removes a part (a huge part) of the sensory system of a human, I very much dislike the use of terms like SNIP. How is removing pleasure giving nerves a snip?
There are plenty of grown men who regret that they were circumcised at birth and not just because they've heard that it greatly reduces sensitivity. It just seems to me that barring any substantive medical reason for doing it, it really should be left up to the boy when he is able to make the decision for himself.
As to appearance, they look natural. I can see thinking they look strange if all you've ever seen are the clipped ones with the head of the glans all dried out and toughened.
Just for some consistency here, I feel the same way about piercing the ears of a baby girl.
Being of the cut group I will say that I never experience some of the feelings my uncut friends talk about. I'm sure it's because of the drying and harding of the head.
Maybe when my sons have children.
(R)
Parents, if you're going to circumcize your kids, fine. But to do it so it "looks like daddy" is the dumbest reason I can think of. How much time do boys really spend contemplating the appearance of their dad's penis?
There is good research suggesting that a foreskin has some protective effect for most STDs (provided the owner has good hygiene) but may make a man more susceptible to HIV. This is because the inside of the foreskin has a lot of T-cells, which normally fight infections, but are the route of HIV infection.
Many boys foreskins don't retract until age 4 or so, making cleaning under them impossible. However, if your child's foreskin doesn't retract by age five, you need to see a doctor --- one that supports your decision, since the average American response to a problem with a foreskin is to lop it off. Usually gently pushing while in the bath will fix the problem over time.
If you have American doctors not comfortable with foreskins, they will not deal with this.
The penis and foreskin, like all body parts, shed skin cells. By the age of 5, if the foreskin doesn't retract, these can build up under the foreskin and cause an infection. This happened to my son when he was 7. Again, the American response is to lop off that unneeded body part. On the whole, these complications are no more common than problems with circumcision.
We were lucky to be in Bulgaria, where a normal penis is intact and the doctor fixed the problem.
In short, if you are going to have an intact boy in America, if you have a minor problem, you need to make sure the solution isn't circumcision.
As for what to tell the kid, I told mine that a very few men are born without foreskins, but many have them cut off. No boy will ever think having a body part cut off is a good thing.
I did a lot of research on this when I had a boy, but I've forgot my sources. They did include the Merck Manual, AIDS research based in Africa, anthropologists, and doctors. I do remember the lop-it-off, a foreskin is disgusting advice from a registered nurse on the Aetna hotline.
Thanks for helping spread the light.
The Lancet has also concluded that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection. As a consequence of these and other studies, both the World Health Organization and UNAIDS now recommend that circumcision of HIV-negative men should form part of national HIV prevention programs in sub-Saharan Africa.
The benefits of circumcision have nothing to do with cosmetics and everything to to do with medical science.
I have two sons, both intact even though their father is not.
Come on America. Be brave. Listen to your instincts. And above all, THINK.
Having an uncircumcised penis is just not a communicable disease. It is not at all similar to vaccinations where we try to achieve the so-called herd immunity. No one contracts diseases, such as polio, measles, etc. on purpose and for the most part no one spreads these infections on purpose. Presumably, how one uses his penis is a matter of individual choice and the choice of his partner. So, it seems like a very indirect way to achieve public health benefits.
Do partners of circumcised men have fewer urinary tract infections? Maybe. But why would I want to do surgery on my sons to protect the health of someone else...someone I don't even know yet?
As to the "allegations of harm", I am pretty sure that nobody would ever suggest that snipping skin off a baby's penis is "alleged" to cause harm. Rather, circumcision IS harm. Bleeding is harm. Cutting is harm. Damage is harm and pain is harm. No allegations necessary. You cut a baby, it screams in pain and bleeds, you've harmed a baby.
That was part of how we decided. When I first got pregnant, I didn't feel strongly about the issue (though I do now) but my husband did. My son was not cut.
I will agree with the sentiment and see no real reason to do so. If for no other reason to stop the extra unneeded medical procedure and the associated cost of doing a circumcision. We can put our medical cost reduction into a savings account for college. Hey its a start.
There will be some people against it. After you dig around in their replies its for one of two reason to make sure they look like their fathers and for religious reasons. First of all fathers are not normally seen in the nude with their kids and even if they are nobody is looking at their penis's. So that is a mute arguement. AAs far as religious reasons, thats up to you and the father. Its a parental decision and whatever you both think is fine with me. If it were up to me I would ask the insurance companies to stop paying for it.
PS..... we did go with the Daddy is so he was, but it was our decision.
Then, my best friend from college's European husband insisted they don't circumcise their son, and her poor kiddo had several UTIs that turned into kidney infections, was later diagnosed with urinary reflux, and also had to get circumcised at 8 months. I don't like the idea of circumcision at all but this makes me nervous not to do it!
"I'm Jewish and amazed that people who don't keep kosher or go to temple or much else still hold on to this custom as essential."
I agree with what this sentence, and deplore this twist in the North American secular Jewish mind. After all, Judaism is not sexual fetish or primitive cult. But I am not surprised. Circumcision has great primal power, by virtue of its standing at the crossroad where sex and violence meet. It involves the most sexual part of the male body.
In North America, having a bald penis is a necessary condition for being perceived as a Jewish male by one's dates. If Sherry Goldstein goes out with Lenny Slatkin and discovers that his trouser snake has an eyelid, she will tend to doubt he is in truth a Member of the Tribe. The Ashkenazim became very very attached to the bald penis because it made it made intermarriage with European Christians very awkward. A Jewish dude could not conceal his Jewishness from any shiksa with whom he had a fling. She would learn the truth about his origins within a few seconds after trying to do foreplay on him. If a nice Jewish girl agreed to marry a goy, she would be reminded of having strayed off the Jewish ramp every time she made love to her husband. This sexual barrier between European Jews and gentiles was surely a secret source of relief to Jewish parents and rabbis.