There are those in the Christian culture who believe some of God's laws in the Old Testament have very practical, medical effects that people were unaware of when they were written down. Circumcision happens to be one of those things that many of them point to, along with some of the dietary restictions, and things having to do with bodily fluids. I find it interesting, but won't hang my hat too snugly on those beliefs because there are lots of rules in the Old Testament that don't seem to be tied to practical use in the same way...but...it's interesting.

My two boys are both circumcised. Although it is not tied to Christianity, I did feel a very strong cultural pull to do it. As a former pre-school teacher who was constantly helping potty train young boys and cleaning up the occasional accident of older boys, I can attest to the fact that it was the rare boy who was not circumcised. I can always remember being surprised when I came across one that wasn't. It wasn't a big deal, but you get used to them looking a certain way! :-)

Terri

Wheat Among Tares

I think is is mainly an 'American' phenomenon.

McEwen Whitterer on Autism
http://whitterer-autism.blogspot.com
e-mail; m.mcewen-asker@att.net

We speak out against the barbaric act of female circumcision in other parts the world, but allow parents to choose whether or not to let doctors to do the same thing to our infant boys?

Quite backwards, I think.
Karen

--
Troll Baby

Motherless

Troll Baby Graphics

Education and prevention will help HIV from spreading, not cutting foreskin.

--
Troll Baby

Motherless

Troll Baby Graphics

I agree that education and use of condoms are far more effective at reducing the rate of HIV infections. However, I don't think that female genital mutilation and circumcision are equivalent to each other. While the removal of the clitoris clearly impacts a woman's ability to have sexual pleasure, the removal of the foreskin does not have the same effect. Plenty of circumcised men seem to enjoy sex. Generally, I'm not a big fan of surgically altering people for no real reason so I can't entirely jump on the circumcision bandwagon (although I admit as a Jewish woman, I'd have my boy circumcised if I had one, but I'm not planning on having kids, so that's a moot point), but it still is not the same as the horrendous butchering of women that takes place.

At any rate, I thought the studies were interesting, particularly the fact that older boys are circumcised sometimes as problems crop up.

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

I'll have to politely agree to disagree. It's mutilation, either way. There is no good reason, religious or otherwise, to cut foreskin off. Just because it's been done in certain cultures and religions for years and years, does not make it right.

Female mutilation has been done for years as well, no?

Both are horrendous acts against people we should be striving to protect.

Karen

--
Troll Baby

Motherless

Troll Baby Graphics

Dear Suzanne:

Please don't believe everything you read in the New York Times.

Professor Donald M. Fergusson and his associates retracted their paper regarding using male circumcision to prevent UTI on November 21, 2006.

Please see the letter at:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/118/5/1971#4725

which states in part:

“…Recent correspondence to the journal has highlighted the fact that our findings are not consistent with cross-sectional studies of the linkages between circumcision and the more common forms of STI (including Chlamydia, genital warts, genital herpes, gonorrhea, and non-specific urethral infections). Of particular relevance is a recent Australian survey of 10,000 male respondents, and the preliminary findings from the Dunedin study. These discrepancies with our findings are too large to be disregarded, and we are of the view that it would be premature to use our findings to promote the view that circumcision reduces risks of less severe forms of STI, until further research clarifying this issue is conducted.”

The New York Times has been remiss in presenting a false picture.

Georgyboy

Sweeping generalizations about why other cultures circumcise females do not produce understanding and are generally paternalistic. Listen to the reasons given behind any genital mutilation of a child- similar cultural superstitions are revealed. Is it barbaric sexism for an African to subject his daughter to circumcision in order than she would be marriageable- but legitimate for an American mother to circumcise her son so that he will fit in in the locker-room? It's a culture imposing a surgically modified ideal onto the genitals of a child.

Does a circumcised man's sexual pleasure exempt him from any claim he might have had to his whole body? If we could prove that a circumcised woman still can have a fulfilling sex life- would that negate her human right to intact genitals? Hanny Lightfoot Klein did an extensive survey of women in Sudan who had the most severe form of FGM and discovered that this myth of sexual destruction is far from the reality. This is not an argument in favor of infibulations- it's a point that varying degrees of sexual mutilation are all on the wrong side of the line drawn at human rights and genital integrity.

98% of women in Egypt are circumcised. If asked about it, it's likely an Egyptian would describe it in similar ways an American circumciser would - It's quick, they are young and forget, it's cleaner, it's healthier, it's prettier, everybody does it, they never miss it, it's no big deal- it's just extra skin, it didn't hurt me, I wouldn't dream of not doing it, it's our religious belief, to avoid problems later, every woman in my family is circumcised...

If the reasons for violating a child's genitals with a knife have any bearing- I think we better take a long hard look at our own reasons and stop criticizing "theirs".
If it were discovered ex post facto that women who'd been circumcised had a reduced a risk of STD- would we be having this discussion?

I think comparing male circumcision with female circumcision is ridiculous. Male circumcision is the removal of a flap of skin that surrounds the tip of the penis. Female circumcision is the removal of part of a larger organ(the clitoris) sometimes the labia, and the stitching up of the vaginal area that limits the ability to urinate and menstruate in a normal way. It is the cause of many medical problems for the women who have endured it. It is also frequently done in unsanitary conditions and by people with no medical training. It is vastly different than male circumcision. Also, females are circumcised out of an attempt to control them and subdue their sexual desires. It is part of a larger cultural framework that demeans women. Male circumcision does not have that underlying cultural baggage attached to it.

There's nothing wrong with not circumcising boys if that is what you choose to do. I chose otherwise.

Terri

Wheat Among Tares

Sarah - I couldn't have said it any better. It IS a violation. Children who are circumcised do not have a choice, just like dogs whose tails and/or ears are clipped for show. Your questions were all valid ones. Here's my two cents.

I know that some female circumcision is for pleasure (removal of part of the hood, a practice that began in Egypt). I also know that some female circumcision is carried out against the wishes of the women in certain countries, and it is done in a very cruel and inhumane way.

Whether you put a positive spin on the acts or not, whether you use anesthetic, in whatever country, under any circumstances, my personal opinion is that it is wrong to violate the genitals of a child.

That is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Tell me your reasons for being pro-circumcision, Terri. I would like to understand what would motivate a mother to be in favour of it.

Karen

--
Troll Baby

Motherless

Troll Baby Graphics

Karen,
I hesitate to answer as to my motivations simply because it is clear that you already think that there is no acceptable reason in your opinion. Also, it has been almost 5 years since the last time I made this decision and I can't quote accurately every source I read about the subject.

First, besides Suzanne's post about the reduction of STDs, there have also been some studies that men who are circumcised are less apt to develop penile cancer and various other genital diseases. To be fair, those statistics are similar to what Suzanne writes about. There is a difference, but it not a 50% difference.

Secondly, my family is not Jewish, but we are Christian and understand the Hebrew roots of Christianity. That is not to say that being circumcised is necessary for Christian boys, but there is a strong cultural sense of being identified with the God of the Old and New Testaments. I realize that may not be a satisfactory answer for you, but that is a part of it and I can't convey all the feelings involving it because it is an internal reason.

Thirdly, I do not see male circumcision as an act of violence as you seem to. You can call that cultural indoctrination or what have you, but I simply don't think it compares to female circumcision as I have already stated.

Is piercing a baby's ears considered an "act of violence?" After all it hurts; there's blood; it's not a "necessary" act and yet many people pierce the ears of infant girls.

I know that you may not approve or like my decision, but I do not feel guilty about it in the least. I am a loving mother and completely devoted to my kids and family. So, disapprove, condemn, rant against it but it doesn't change who I am or the love I have for my family.

Terri

Wheat Among Tares

I too think comparing the female mutilation with male circumcision is comparing apples to oranges vs. Apples to apples.

When I had my son, I did all the research, and decided for circumcision. It surprises me, years later, that there is still such a debate about what other people believe. I didn't do it for religous reasons, I did it because I felt it was the right choice for my son - and as his parent, it was my choice to make.

The year after his birth, a friend of mine also had a son, and she made the opposite choice. However, when that child was 3 years old, he developed a series of infections and painful conditions that were remedied by circumcision. (And before you blame the mother - yes, she took great pains to take proper care of the uncircumcised penis. So don't even go there.) She agonized over her decision at his birth that could have prevented the conditions he developed. So much so that I had to be there for the circumcision, and I'll never ever forget when he (3 years old) woke up to find me holding him - and thought I had hurt him, and continued to think it was my fault while I helped care for him after surgery. Something so simple could have stopped 3 weeks worth of pain. Thankfully he's now an 8th grader and remembers nothing. Though I still feel the need to spoil him to make up for that one pain filled look and whisper "Auntie hurt me...?!?"

Needless to say, that friend made sure to circumcise her second son at birth.

So there's the other side of the coin. Sometimes, shit happens. I have not deprived my son of being "whole" any more then my daughter, who is sans tonsils. I did not do it to make sure he'd "fit in" in the locker room, that's simply asinine. I made an educated decision in the care and keeping of my son, just as I have for my other children, as is in my job (SuperMom, natch!) description.

I would never slam another mother for making a decision different then mine. I would tell the story I know - if asked - and still support her decision, just as I did the friend above. Because when it comes down to it, it's a personal choice on the parent's part, and really no one else's business.

Just my 2.5 cents on the matter. heh.

Kaleidoscopic Eclat

Terri- Circumcision certainly does carry a cultural burden in the USA and I can not see any difference in the feelings and issues American parents face than parents in any other culture who are compelled to circumcise their children. I have been listening to parent"s stories for almost a decade and it is extremely common for parents to make this decision under duress.

How common is it to hear a woman say, "Luckily I'm having a girl so I won't have to make this decision." What does that mean? It means the option of circumcision in this culture is a lose lose proposition... if you do it- you are doing something you don't want to do, and if you don't do it, you are not doing something you expected to do.

Where does the cultural pressure to circumcise come from? For one, there is an expectation of normalcy to be gained from circumcision. To be like daddy, like all his cousins, to not be mocked in the lockerroom. If all the boys are born with their anatomy one way- does it make sense that they all need to have surgery to all have their anatomy look another way? It only takes one generation of brave circumcised fathers to raise intact sons. You'd have a surgery free future of generations on into eternity who can be born "looking like daddy" No post partum mother would ever have to choke back tears of remorse to see her newborns weeping wounded genitals and wonder what she had allowed to happen.

That's not going to happen quickly in America the way it did in a single generation in England, Australia and Canada. It won't happen because the mixed message we get from our medical system which says, "We can circumcise your baby for any reason you chose, as long as we get paid."

There is a large investment in this by all the people who circumcised for normalcy. The us and them club. The belonging. If you question circumcision- you threaten them because you might raise a likeable popular kid who is not circumcised and put their investment in the crapper. If a boy is circumcised to fit in, what if his best friend is not circumcised and fits in just fine? When the gals at the baby shower say, "Aren't you afraid that he would be teased?" They are making a threat. They are telling you that you should be afraid of their investment. When they circumcised they counted on you circumcising too. The pressure is not on the little boys in the lockerroom- the pressure is back at the parent's level saying, "I plan to tell him that everyone is circumcised- end of story... and if your little Colten has an uncut wiener and our boy comes home asking why we cut a piece of his off- there will be hell to pay!"

Peers have an investment in the status quo. Wives have the pressure of their husbands, and then there are the inlaws... if a circumcised man choses to not circumcise his son- does that ever introduce an awkward dynamic when Grandma comes over! Did you ever notice in these discussions, when the question of a man's satisfaction with his own circumcision comes up- it is always portrayed as intertwined with his relationship with his parents or his sexual function? In our culture, men are not allowed to simply form their own opinions about being circumcised- their feelings have to carry such a heavy burden of what everyone else makes of his feelings, if he's gay or impotent, or wallowing in reasons to resent his mother. "I never knew a man who hated his parents because he was circumcised." is what they snap back when they are confronted with information that demonstrates a value in entire anatomy. Why is the relationship to his parents even an issue here? Does the reality of the anatomical form and function have any bearing on a child's love for his parents? The message which is subtly delivered in many ways is, "If you love your mother and father, no matter how you feel, you will not let them know that you feel your body was robbed." and "Circumcision is infallable, if you say anything negative about your circumcision, there will be a presumption that the problem is really in your head or in your own inadaquacies. Circumcision is always an improvement and revealing your dissatisfaction will only mark you as a whimp."

Terri- That's all cultural indoctrination. It says, honor your mother and father and do what they did. Don't frighten your friends and question their actions. Mothers- give us this, let us cut your precious baby at birth and we will know you are a good team player. If you let us draw our line on his genitals, we'll have a record of where your line is drawn.

What I would like to ask of you is that you maintain objectivity, that you continue to evaluate this as you grow and learn, that you don't let yourself get locked into defending circumcision based solely on what happened in the past... What happened a generation ago when your husband was born... or what happened in the old testament before the better promises of the new covenant. Keep your heart open and understand that circumcision does not need to lock you in. You are free to continue to evaluate this, and men- even those circumcised at birth- should be given the freedom to look at circumcision without the burden of making other people feel comfortable. I hope that when they are grown and have their own children that your sons can look at this decision with the same eyes they see the freshness of a their newborn child- and that they do not feel obliged to repeat the circumcision just because you did it to them for reasons you can't even remember five years after the fact. I hope that when your daughter in law is pregnant that you sit the couple down and release them from the burden of past decisions.

You know, I find it a little sad to see a group exclusively composed of women talking about whether or not making surgical alterations to male anatomy is okay or not. As a man I would undoubtedly (and rightfully) be denounced for being so presumptuous as to talk about whether or not to, for instance, surgically alter my daughter's labia. Let's make a deal, Suzanne. I'll keep my mouth shut about whether or not a woman should shave off her pubic hair (at least unless I make a specific deal with her individually to shave or trim mine in reciprocation), and you keep yours shut about whether or not a baby boy's foreskin should be chopped off.

Many cultures can adopt practices that those outside the culture see as "depraved"—the culture that does adopt the practice does not see it this way because it is their culture. Their culture is a lens or a filter on their perception, and when you look through red glasses, red looks white to you—your own cultural norms appear as universal norms to you. A few people—very few people—can at times take off the lenses and see things as they are. These people are the impetus for reforming culture. Abolitionists, feminists, agitators for civil and human rights—these people see outside the lens of their culture and question it. (All too often, of course, these people fall into the trap of rigidly adopting their own counterculture, and suffer from the same blindness—the paradox inherent when an anti-establishment cultural movement becomes an establishment in and of itself. But this is neither here nor there.)

I think that, in time, anti-circumcision advocates will be seen in the same light. Looking objectively at the problem, circumcision is the surgical removal of a functional and useful part of the human body for, at best, dubious and minor health benefits. It runs a real risk of removing an even more functional and useful part of the human body (the glans). If don't let your kids throw pencils at each other because they might lose an eye, then why do you make them go through an unnecessary surgery that puts them at risk of losing their cock (or at the very least, the most functional part of it)? At least your kid has a backup eye.

I don't think parents who circumcise their boys are necessarily to blame, as long as they're acting in good faith. I just think that elective circumcision an abhorrent practice that's distasteful and unnecessary. It's a breach of medical ethics (as it lacks informed consent) and a practice that, quite frankly, should be outlawed.

Circumcision is male Genital Mutilation. Period.
Baby boys who have this operation have more problems than baby boys who are not circumcised. Therefor Medical Ethics says that Circumcision is NOT MEDICALLY INDICATED.
That means outside of any cultural, religious, parental claptrap; There is no medical reason to do this to your baby boys!
So, you are cutting on your baby boys' genitals for your own pleasure, that is GENITAL MUTILATION..
Period.