CDC may push circumcision to combat AIDS
The New York Times reported yesterday:
Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS….
Experts are also considering whether the surgery should be offered to adult heterosexual men whose sexual practices put them at high risk of infection. But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men.
I’m actually a proponent of male circumcision, but that’s beside the point….
Here we see a parallel to the recent push to mandate a vaccination (Gardasil) of adolescent girls to prevent the sexually transmitted disease Human Papilloma Virus.
This becomes comical. How far will our society go to avoid the consequences of illicit and deviant sex? I guess the answer is there are no bounds if bent on avoiding the truth that abstinence, fidelity, and heterosexuality are the only foolproof ways.
[HT: reader Charles]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
So fetuses should be totally protected in the uterus, but once they are born it is ok to mutilate their genitals without giving them the choice? I’m very pro-cosmetic surgery, but I just think the person having it done should consent. That’s the way it goes in Europe, and they have a lower AIDS rate than we do.
I also have to ask if the reason so many social conservatives advocate circumcision is because of its negative consequences on sexual pleasure. Uncut men feel better and experience more sensations. Does this make pro-circers feel good?
Jill,
I think you mean “foolproof”. :)
Jill, just wondering your reasons for circumcision. I had all my boys circumcised but my friends mom, who is a nurse, didn’t circumcise her son.
I do not think it should be mandated, just like Gardasil should not be required.
J, right… thanks… will fix.
Kristen, Simple answer: What’s good enough for the Bible is good enough for me. I also know it’s more hygienic. That said, it should not be mandatory!
Somehow I think the “public health officials” are missing the point (no pun intended). Again. Our tax dollars being wasted, as usual.
The presence or absence of a foreskin has nothing to do with AIDS or STDs. The determining factor is risky behavior, homo- and hetero-sexual, and intravenous drug abuse. Are MD-PhD’s not capable of figuring that out?
The search for the magic answer goes on, while the true (but unpopular) answer is as obvious as it ever was.
The type of circumcicision practised in the bible involved cutting off a lot less skin than that practiced today. What we know as circumcision now was introduced to Americans in the 1800s as a cure for masturbation.
Jill,
I am very pro-life and have worked against abortion for decades. I am also against circumcision and for the bodily integrity of individuals. I do not want to see children killed before birth or genitally mutilated after birth, be they male or female.
The Bible, specifically the New Testament, has a lot to say about circumcision. It is unnecessary now. As a Catholic, I know that non-therapeutic circumcision violates the Catholic Catechism teaching on “Respect for bodily integrity.” See: http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/
Here’s what the New Testament of the Bible has to say about circumcision:
St. Peter dismissed circumcision as unnecessary and disadvantageous in Acts 15:10, “And now are you going to correct God by burdening the Gentiles with a yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?”
Galatians 5:2-6: “Pay close attention to me, Paul, when I tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you. I point out once more to all who receive circumcision that they are bound to the law in its entirety. Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourselves from Christ and fallen from God’s favor! It is in the spirit that we eagerly await the justification we hope for, and only faith can yield it. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor the lack of it counts for anything; only faith, which expresses itself through love.”
Philippians 3:2-3: “Beware of unbelieving dogs. Watch out for workers of evil. Be on guard against those who mutilate. It is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus rather than putting our trust in the flesh.”
1 Corinthians 7:18-19: “Was someone called after he had been circumcised? He should not hide his circumcision. Did the call come to another who had never been circumcised? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision counts for nothing, and its lack makes no difference either. What matters is keeping God’s commandments.”
1 Corinthians 12: 18: “As it is, God has set each member of the body in the place he wanted it to be.”
Sadly, the reasoning behind the study is not revealed.
The reason that IN AFRICA there is a difference between the HIV rates in circumcised vs. uncircumcised males is because there is a falsehood that is widely accepted as “truth” there that if a man is uncirc’d his foreskin acts as a natural condom. Therefore, men are far less likely to use condoms there than if they were circ’d.
These results show that condoms help to prevent the spread of HIV, NOT that circumcision does anything. Handy how they leave that part out.
The radical circumcision as practiced by today’s medical community bears little to no resemblance to the original circumcision of the Old Testament.
While circumcision has some health benefits, before even considering making it mandatory, there should be a lot of research and sufficient medical evidence and it should be a men’s reproductive health choice, not mandatory.
So is the National Socialist healthcare system going to try to forcibly circumcise my 3 little boys? Is this what the nation formerly known as America has sunk to?
The other poster is right, biblical circumcision that God ordained for a time, removed much less than today’s mutiliating procedure. It was divinely ordained as an ethnoreligious emblem and was NOT a destroyer of sexual pleasure like the modern procedure, which actually dates to postChristian times. Hebrew defectors who wanted to assimilate into GrecoRoman culture — in which social nudity was commonplace at the baths and the athletic ring — would stretch out their foreskins to appear unmodified, and Hebrew radicals responded by changing the procedure to cut off a lot more so this was impossible. (I once had to do a research project on the subject for my pastor….quite eye opening).
Islam, by the way, follows the newer, more mutilating procedure. Just what you’d expect from the religion of the Madhi/Anti-Christ.
I’ll never know how much pleasure I missed due to my mutilation but I am determined to ensure that my sons (and their wives) experience the “real thing”… CDC and Nazional Sozialistische Healthcare be damned.
“How far will our society go to avoid the consequences of illicit and deviant sex?”
As far as we can.
Just to add a point, here: our social hygiene standards are a great deal more stringent than those of biblical times. Provided a boy/man is bathing/showering regularly, the health risks of not circumsizing are greatly overexaggerated.
Also, they’ve found that there is actually smegma on the foreskin which contains antibodies that help to reduce the spread of infection.
And the studies done in Africa have been criticized as they weren’t done in a highly unprofessional manner, even down to the usage of testing kits which had clearly marked on them that they weren’t reliable testing for HIV/AIDS.
I did a great deal of researching before making a decision with my son, so I have a decent amount of sharing to do, lol. Sorry to blab… For the record, when we first started looking, my husband and I were pro-circ.
No amount of studies are going to prove that a modern-circumcision at birth reduces a man’s sexual pleasure throughout his life.
There is only physical evidence of a reduction in protection of the glans and less amount of sensitive nerves.
If one never had a foreskin then… how would this person know the difference?
I too believe that modern circumcision is largely unnecessary (and would rather that if I have sons that they not be circumcised). The practice itself has very little risks and does not destroy a male’s sexual satisfaction later in life.
This topic is a LOT less important than abortion. Circumcision: lose your foreskin. Abortion: lose your life. Big difference.
Posted by: gfd at August 24, 2009 2:04 PM
“I also have to ask if the reason so many social conservatives advocate circumcision is because of its negative consequences on sexual pleasure. Uncut men feel better and experience more sensations. Does this make pro-circers feel good?”
—————————————————–
How does one arrive at a logical fact based conclusion that uncircumcised men ‘feel better and experience more sensations’ than circumsised men.
How do you measure something as subjective as ‘feelngs’ and ‘sensations’.
And how do you estabish a control group?
Do you recruit adult males who have not gone under the knife and develope some objective standard of measurement for ‘feelings’ and ‘sensitvity’ and then get these same men to submit to an elective surgical procedure to prove that they will now have less pleasure as a result of that surgical procedure.
Is it possible to re-attach a foreskin if the theory is proven true?
I wonder if the SCOTUS has discovered a constitutional entitlement to circumcision or circumcision reversal surgery for men.
yor bro ken
ps: I have never met a ‘social conservative’ who advocated circumcision as a ‘government policy’.
What I have read here is ‘personal preference’.
I have never heard social conservatives even discuss the pro’s and con’s of circumsision.
I have only read of it being discussed in terms of public health by health care professionals who work in the field of public health.
The worst sex I ever experienced was great in spite of being circumcised.
Posted by: Hal at August 24, 2009 7:03 PM
“How far will our society go to avoid the consequences of illicit and deviant sex?”
As far as we can.
—————————————————
Hal,
The sad part of that is you won’t know how far you can go until you have gone too far and sufferred the consequences.
I would tell my little childern not to touch the stove because it was hot and it would hurt them. Unfortunately nearly all of them had to experience pain before they understood what ‘hot’ and ‘hurt’ meant and then they understood dad was not just telling them ‘no’ to be the boss of them and keep them from having fun.
Wise people learn from other peoples mistakes and so avoid a lot of unnecessary pain.
yor bro ken
I think it should be mandatory. A penis should never, ever, ever look like that. (uncircumised)
eeeeeeeew.
I wonder what the American ‘mohel’ Association has to say about this?
A lady went into a shop in Jerusalem and asked the proprieter if he could repair her clock?
He said, “Lady I am mohel, I perfrom circumcisions. I don’t repair clocks.”
The lady said, “Then why do you have all those clocks on your wall?”
The mohel said, “What would you have me hang on my walls?”
yor bro ken
What do you get when you mix Rogaine with Viagra!
Hair like Don King
Is viagra a performance enhancing substance or a recreational drug?
Yes!
yor bro ken
ps: They are just jokes. I am not writing from experience.
Posted by: gfd at August 24, 2009 5:16 PM
“What we know as circumcision now was introduced to Americans in the 1800s as a cure for masturbation.”
—————————————————–
gdf,
How’s that workin for you?
When I was child we were told masturbation would make hair grow on the back of your hands?
Made you look.
We were also told it would make you go blind.
Can I just do it, til I need glasses?
yor bro ken
MaryRose, I agree with everything you’ve said. I take particular offense to the hygiene claims. I guess girls would be “more hygienic” if we cut off their labia. Oh, wait, that sounds familiar.
I would not cut off my daughter’s breasts to prevent against the possibility of breast cancer, when I could instead teach her to be healthy and vigilant. I would not cut off my son’s foreskin to obtain a possible situation-specific benefit against contracting HIV, when I could instead teach him to be healthy and responsible.
Alexandra,
I’m a little baffled about why conservative Christians are still gung-ho about circumcision when we eat pork. I suppose if there were great benefits to circumcision, I could understand it, but most of what I’ve read as far as pros to circumcision is at this point rather unreliable and/or inconclusive at best. I figure, if my son decides that he isn’t being true to God’s commands, he can take the initiative on his own.
Also, I researched the actual procedure, and it’s far from being painless or simple, as it’s touted.
And all of the doctors I’ve spoken to about the procedure (both of my Ob-gyns, his pediatrician, the attending physician from when he had croup, the specialists who looked him over when he was born because of jaundice and coombs, and I’m sure I’m forgetting someone) told me that circumcision nowadays is almost completely cosmetic anymore. Admittedly, none of them were discussing religion with me.
Now, these are my opinions, and I feel like this choice should be left to the individuals, particularly as it pertains to a religious belief and isn’t mutilation in the way that “female circumcision” is. I don’t feel like there’s necessarily a “right” answer to this question. But to have circumcision recommended as routine practice by the CDC seems totally and completely ridiculous to me!
Marie, obviously God thought that the foreskin should look JUST like that, because he’s the one who put it there! The New Testatment is quite clear that it is circumcision of the heart that is the issue, not circumcision of the penis.
My husband is British and like most men of Britain is uncircumcised, as are our sons and will be our new son. I’m so sorry you find the penis in its natural state so offensive. Obviously, with #7 on the way, I do not. I never once looked at my baby boys and thought “You know, he’d look so much better if we cut some of that off!” No! They are perfect as they are.
In fact, I had to watch a circumcision during nursing school and almost threw up. As the doctor cut away the foreskin you could see how red and raw the little glans was… it wasn’t meant to be exposed like that.
My little men are perfect and wonderful. And so is my husband. And if I go any further in this thread it will get x-rated… so I shall stop other than to say there are certain activities I have no clue how they are performed on a circ’d male without major friction issues.
I heard of other countries doing circumcision as part of their culture because its hygienic.
Elisabeth,
As long as you’re happy, then I’m happy for you.
I’ll always think it’s gross. Here in the States, most women think it’s gross as well. In fact, many people say that it is cruel to not have their boys circumcised. They get made fun out of by other boys in the locker rooms. I would never dream of making a son an outcast due to a flap of skin that doesn’t have to be there.
Marie,
Your information is outdated here in the States, the percentage of uncircumcised boys is now nearly 50%. The concept that uncircumcised penises are “gross” is becoming a thing of the past.
MaryRose,
My how things have changed! I’m glad I grew up when I did. :)
I’ll always think uncircumcised penises are gross, and I’m sure I won’t be the only one.
However…to each their own!
Marie,
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, my opinion of beauty is at this point completely wrapped up in my husband. I constantly compare all other men to Daniel, and they never seem to be as good. Guess I got lucky! XD
Read the book Sex as Nature Intended it! Most American women have no idea what they are missing. The foreskin is the most erogenous zone of the male body and necessary for full stimulation and lubrication. Any cut man who says his works just fine is no different than someone born colorblind saying they see just fine, and any kid who pics on an uncut child in the locker room needs to be called out for looking at
other children’s penises.
Jill: “What’s good enough for the Bible is good enough for me.” See this page, especially Gal 5:2 “…if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.” And see there how the Catholic church has long condemned any but medically necessary circumcision.
“I also know it’s more hygienic.” Just not so: it’s very easy quick (and dare I say it, fun) to clean. I’m sure there are comparable surgeries you could do on little girls that would make them “more hygienic” too, but you wouldn’t, would you?
MaryRose, looks like we’re 100% in agreement on this! I don’t have a son, but I was very unpassionately pro-circ by default for most of my life. I agree with everything you’ve said.
Here is a question for you, and if it’s too personal for you to answer then I apologize. How did your husband deal, emotionally, with changing his mind about circumcision? I worry about encouraging my loved one to research this issue, because I don’t want him to feel as though he is being judged as being inadequate, or his parents’ choices are being judged as “wrong,” etc. He already struggles a great deal with the manner in which he was raised, and I worry that he might react emotionally to any information I present in opposition to circumcision and see this as “one more way” in which his upbringing was “wrong,” etc. I DO NOT want to say that at all! I love him very much just as he is! But when it comes to what I want for a future son of mine, this is important to me.
Hi Alexandra,
My two cents. Most of my friends wanted their sons to be like Daddy. My husband wanted his boys to be like him. He got to choose on that. :)
Well, they’re sure as heck not circumcising MY future sons. No offense to the Jews, but I always figured that if God didn’t want males to have foreskins, He wouldn’t have given them to them in the first place. It’s not like it’s a tumor or some diseased part of the body, it’s just a naturally occuring flap of skin. My fiance and I talked about it and he agrees with me, even though he’s circumsized – it’s a medically unnecessary procedure and newborn baby boys should be sleeping and eating and bonding with their parents, not having attached skin on a sensitive part of their bodies pushed back and amputated.
UGH. I had doubts about this when my son was born. I didn’t do it at first, and I wanted him to be uncut. But then my mom started pushing me to do it, and then the nurses started suggesting it as though it was a given that I wanted it done…and my husband was deployed so I was by myself and had just had surgery in addition to my son being born, so I was on all kinds of pain med…just…UGH. I could cry. :(
P.S. to Alexandra: I’d start with the “it’s unnecessary” angle and only move into the problems with circumcision if that doesn’t convince him. If nothing else, tell your husband you love him just the way he is, but you’ll love your son just the way *he* is, too.
Marauder, I appreciate your input.
Carla, I understand that point of view. But at the same time I am averse to reasoning that amounts to basically supporting cosmetic surgery for my child. My goal right now is not to better understand how to deal with having my child circumcised, though I don’t think circumcision is the worst thing in the world — but to understand how best to encourage the man I love to look into the reasons against circumcision rather than only ever knowing the reasons for it.
Why exactly are we strapping our children’s legs down at birth and chopping off body parts so their genitals can resemble ours? In fact, why our we even comparing our genitals with our children’s? I never remember looking at my mother nude to see if we looked alike. If she had parts altered I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to know about it.
Marie, here in the Southwest, only 30% of boys are circumcised.
My sons are definitely not in the minority, not that that would be a basis for choice.
I guarantee you that the boy in the locker room checking out another boy’s penis will receive far more crap from the other boys than will the boy who either is or is not circumcised.
And the concept of cutting off part of my SON’S anatomy because of what I do or do not find sexually pleasing aesthetically seems psychologically deviant. My son is not here for my visual sexual gratification. I need to put HIS needs to be whole ahead of whatever I may or may not find visually appealing.
First, let me say that I believe that NOBODY should be FORCED to choose to circumcise their little boy. It’s a choice each parent should make based on what they think is the best for their child.
HOWEVER, I will say that I do not see a problem with circumcision. I have two boys and they are both circ’d. My husband is as well and I asked him once if he enjoyed sex just fine. He looked at me like I had flipped my lid. He’s never felt that sex was lacking in any way. I’ve seen pix of uncircumcised penises before and I’d have to say… YUCK. What wife would want that in her mouth with all that smelly smegma under it anyway? The stuff starts collecting immediately after a man showers.
Also, when I was pregnant with my first boy, I did a lot of research and agonizing over whether or not to circumcise. I read accounts from adult men who had been circumcised in their adult lives for medical reasons, and they LIKED SEX BETTER AFTERWARDS!!!!!!!! What does that tell you? They experienced it both ways and liked it better afterwards. The supposition of sexual pleasure being diminished afterwards is a MYTH. There’s no need for a circumcised male to feel sorry for himself feeling like he is “missing something great” when there’s nothing missed. Like he would know for sure if he were missing anything if he were circumcised as a child, anyway – it’s all a bunch of zealots fearmongering and planting doubt in men’s minds about their circumcision.
I don’t believe that male circumcision is anywhere close to the same plane as female “circumcision”. Female genital mutilation, as it is called, is for the express purpose of diminishing female sexual pleasure in the hope of promoting virginity. Male circumcision is NOT mutilation and is for hygeine reasons (or medical reasons, normally, for the ones that do it as an adult).
And for the record, conservatives aren’t “gung ho” about circumcision for religious reasons. I did not decide to circumcise my boys for religious reasons but for hygeinic reasons and medical reasons. I made a careful consideration of all the medical literature I found and the testimonies of men circumcised as adults and made the decision I felt best for my children.
You may choose to disagree with me. That’s fine and that’s your right but you aren’t going to change MY mind, or make me feel guilty for choosing to circumcise my boys. I will adamantly support any parent’s right to choose what they feel is best for their boys in this matter – it doesn’t matter much to me whether a parent chooses to circumcise or not. I will defend their right to do what they feel would be most beneficial for their child just as I will adamantly defend my right to make up my own mind on this issue.
What I take issue with is all the name-calling, put-downs, guilt-trips, and melodromatic, extreme accusations (“mutilation!! Loss of sexual feeling!!!”) aimed at parents who circumcise their boys. I don’t call people names who choose not to circumcise their children and I expect the same courtesy from those on the other side.
Yeah, the whole “looks like Daddy” thing doesn’t really work for me, either.
At what point will a child’s genitals actually resemble his father’s? When he is a small child his penis will be much smaller and hairless… whilst Daddy’s is larger and has hair.
By the time junior hits full fledged puberty, Dad is getting on a bit in age and will begin to show changes in hair color/sagging etc.
And my husband has brown hair and hazel eyes. My sons have blonde hair and brown eyes. Should I color their hair and get them colored contact lenses?
I am anti-circumcision for those who aren’t Jewish. I am also very conservative, and very Christian. But then, I’m also very pro-sex. Sex is good. Get married and have lots of sex and lots of babies… that’s what God intended :)
I am very glad my husband isn’t circumcised. I had to ask him when we got pregnant because I don’t look at pictures of that sort of thing. As for my sons, I will follow the Bibles advice: if they come uncircumcised, I won’t have them circumcised. If they come circumcised, I won’t have them uncircumcised.
I don’t know what a circumcised penis looks like, and am not all that interested in finding out–but I like the way my husband looks.
My son was born with hypospadias. Basically the urethral opening was at the scrotum instead of the tip of the penis. The “tube” didn’t form correctly.
Over the course of 3 surgeries, they used the foreskin to form the tube so that everything is now where it should be.
After his final surgery it looked as though he had torn a stitch and would require further surgery to look 100% normal. We really had to think about what we would do at that point.
We asked ourselves if we should keep going with increasingly painful surgeries, or just let 95% normal be good enough. Thankfully things healed better than we expected and we didn’t have to make the hard decision.
He looks completley normal now, albiet cic’d. We always knew he would need the foreskin for surgery, so the decision was made for us. I’m not sure what we’ll do in the future if we have another boy.
http://www.circumcision.org/position.htm
Actually, army wife, do you not see how insulting it is to those of us with uncircumcised husbands and sons for you to call them gross and unclean? To say YUCK about our husband’s genitals? You don’t find that offensive? You think it’s okay to put down another couple’s sexual activities because YOU think it’s gross?
You have seen pictures. We deal with reality.
There are times when a man is born with an extremely tight foreskin. For those men, and for those men only, adult circumcision (a choice they freely make for themselves) can be a relief from that tightness and pain which would, obviously, allow for greater sexual pleasure than not being circumcised. This is something that cannot be foretold in advance, and I see no point in assuming my child will be one of that small percentage and pre-emptively cutting off part of his anatomy. For men who do NOT have this problem, caused by pain, there if a fuller range of sexual sensation if not circumcised.
There are medical conditions, such as hypospadias, such as Lauren discusses, where routine infant circumcision cannot be performed because the foreskin is required to correct the medical condition. However, in the end, yes, the child is “circumcised” so that the tissue can be used for the medical correction. That is also a completely different issue from routine infant circumcision.
So, I’m sorry, yes, you have called my husband yucky (in capital letters no less) and unclean, neither of which is true. Would you like to restate whether or not you call names against those who choose not to circumcise?
“if” should read “is”
“In fact, why our we even comparing our genitals with our children’s? I never remember looking at my mother nude to see if we looked alike.”
Exactly. Besides, the sexual organs of a child are never going to look like the sexual organs of a mature adult, circumcision or no circumcision.
army_wife, I think you’re being seriously offensive. Smegma isn’t any more of a problem for uncircumcized men than it is for women; it’s the same substance that forms in the vulva, and you just wash it. It’s like saying, “ugh, women should have their labia cut off – what men would want all that smelly smegma in his mouth?” Normal, healthy human bodies aren’t gross or disgusting.
Good points, Elisabeth. Besides, a lot of the time foreskin problems go away on their own when a boy is young. A couple in Canada in the 1960s were encouraged to have their seven-month-old sons circumcized because their foreskins made a little more difficult for them to urinate; the first son was the victim of medical malpractice and ended up with his penis burned off. The second son was never circumsized and the problem eventually just stopped. (To those in favor of circumcision, my point in saying this is that the problem went away, not “if you get your son circumsized his penis is going to burn off.”)
Why WOULD you circumsize a normal, healthy baby boy? If it weren’t a religious thing for one of the major world religions, would this have even become a mainstream practice? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If a boy doesn’t have some kind of problem with his foreskin that can only be fixed with circumcision, why would you bother?
Uncircumsized men do have more sexual sensation, because the heads of their penises are usually covered by the foreskin and kept protected and slightly moist. It’s the same sort of principle as with a clitoris. Circumsized men have their penises rubbing against fabric all day, and it’s just common sense that skin that keeps rubbing against something gets at least somewhat roughened. There are men who have gradually stretched the skin of the penises to create a “new foreskin,” and according to them it does make things more sensitive.
Like I said my two cents. My boys hardly run around naked with my husband comparing their anatomy. There were two choices. My husband chose.
Yes Elisabeth. That is what I was getting at. Dye their hair, change their eye color. :P
If your husband is not circumcised and neither are your boys, what is the diff in what I said?
Alexandra,
Actually, when my husband saw a diagram of the procedure, he became the one encouraging me not to circ. I hadn’t made up my mind yet.
And ftr, he is circumcised. It is possible there there will be some “why doesn’t Daddy look like me?” questions in the future, but I never understood why this is a problem. The truth isn’t evil or wrong. It is just fact.
army_wife,
my comment about conservative Christians being “gung-ho” about circ wasn’t meant to insult anyone. I myself am a conservative Christian. I was simply stating that I’ve run into those who feel like it’s somehow breaking God’s law not to circ, and yet have no problem eating a big pork roast. I was expressing my confusion over this. I’m not trying to point fingers, but to ask, “Why is this, specifically, so important?”
I have no qualms with those who choose to circumcise. I was inclined to do so before I did the research. At this point, I figure, I have no problem with keeping him uncirc’ed and if he chooses to change that later, at least he can do so with substantial pain medication and on his own terms. But this is, again, the decision I made for my son. I wouldn’t insult anyone else’s decision made responsibly. In fact, I believe I clarified quite clearly that fact, and the fact that this isn’t at all comparable to female mutilation.
So if you’re getting up-in-arms about any of the statements I’ve made, please understand that I have no problem with circumcision. I simply didn’t choose it for my son because I don’t see enough benefits in so doing.
Because my husband not being circumcised is not the reason that our boys are uncircumcised.
For example, my father is not circumcised, my brother is (and my mother watched and said if she had known what it would be like, she wouldn’t have done it!)
My husband not being circumcised led me to research all of the information I was being given about how “necessary” circumcision is and upon discussion of that information we decided against circumcision.
While the end result may seem the same, the thought process, at least based upon the reasoning you stated above, is different.
And of course you didn’t say dye their hair. I was pointing out that there are many ways in which our husbands and our sons are different. If, as you state (and I would guess to be the case in most households), dad and sons don’t run around naked around each other, then that argument seems even less sensible to me…
I don’t care if someone else chooses to circumcise their son. However, if someone states reasoning such as “so dad and sons can look alike” I’m going to wonder how on earth it makes a difference… And if someone states reasoning which is based upon medical “data” that is flawed I will point out the flaws in it. This is a flawed, horribly flawed, study from the CDC.
To somewhat bring this back upon topic, I will say that I find it far more problematic when I meet someone who is vehemently anti-circ but pro-abortion…. especially if they are the type (as I am not) to throw around the word “mutilation” gratuitously. I’ve met plenty of women like that… don’t you dare mutilate your baby’s penis you horrible woman you, but if you choose to have his entire body dismembered and sucked out by a vacuum, I’ll support you in that. Now that makes NO sense to me.
Marie: “I think it should be mandatory. A penis should never, ever, ever look like that. (uncircumised)…eeeeeeeew.”
Perhaps, Marie, someone will decide that (s)he doesn’t think a woman’s clitoris should ever, ever look like yours, and will move to make it mandatory to have some of it cut off. When will you schedule your appointment?
Carla: “Like I said my two cents. My boys hardly run around naked with my husband comparing their anatomy.”
That’s the thing. Here in the U.S. we don’t have all the naturist beaches/resorts that they have in Europe, where non-religious circumcision is far rarer than it is here (though it’s becoming rarer and rarer here every year). So what’s this ridiculous nonsense about circumcising your son so “he’ll look like his daddy”?! And even if people WERE seeing the whole family naked, what person in his/her right mind will ask, “Why is Herb circumcised but Junior isn’t?” Are they also comparing the labias of the mother and daughter(s) in the family? Shouldn’t we be making eye contact when we talk to people?
Elisabeth,
Boys are smart enough to realize even when their boy parts are completely unlike Daddy’s, that there is a distinct physical difference. One that can be attributed to more than aging. And it’s not entirely fair to compare something that involves cutting off part of a penis to something that involves putting in contacts and coloring hair. Very different indeed. Besides which, anytime you deal with the genitalia, you deal with more sensitive questions.
I’m simply saying, while I understand the sentiment, I think it’s unfair to equate circumcision with dyed hair…. you know?
Marie: “They get made fun out of by other boys in the locker rooms. I would never dream of making a son an outcast due to a flap of skin that doesn’t have to be there.”
What locker rooms are you talking about?! In gym class, we changed with our underwear on. In ninth-grade aquatics, we had all mastered the modest “change with a towel wrapped around you” technique. This may be difficult for you to believe, but we weren’t comparing and contrasting our penises.
Elisabeth: “And the concept of cutting off part of my SON’S anatomy because of what I do or do not find sexually pleasing aesthetically seems psychologically deviant. My son is not here for my visual sexual gratification. I need to put HIS needs to be whole ahead of whatever I may or may not find visually appealing.”
That’s rather the idea. Hearing women talk about their want for MEN to have part of their bodies removed is the most offensive argument, to me. Who should care what type of male genitalia WOMEN like to look at?
I’ve seen this comment on another board, and it’s brilliant: the men who have been circumcised as babies are most likely observant Jews or observant Muslims — who, statistically, are FAR LESS LIKELY TO BE PROMISCUOUS! Correlation, yes, but not causation. The circumcision isn’t what prevented the HIV transmisssion; it was not boinking everything in sight. But I guess that’s too “puritanical” an idea for people. Much more “rational” that we partially mutilate every other infant. Odd world we live in.
bmmg,
I believe the sentiment is more so that in case Junior does see Daddy’s circ’ed penis, his reaction is not to feel that he is somehow wrong or misformed because his doesn’t look like that.
Personally, my feeling is that an honest discussion would clear that up, but it is important to understand a family not wanting their child to experience feelings of wrongfulness or inadequacy because of the appearance of their genitals.
“That’s rather the idea. Hearing women talk about their want for MEN to have part of their bodies removed is the most offensive argument, to me. Who should care what type of male genitalia WOMEN like to look at?”
Yeah. It’s like, “guys like big breasts, so you should get implants.” Now there are women undergoing labiaplasties because of negative reactions to their genitalia from male sexual partners. Surgically altering your body because members of the opposite sex think normal parts of it are ugly or gross is just…there’s probably a better term, but what’s coming to mind now is “messed up.”
Honestly… I have asked my brother. He was circ’d, dad was not. Sure he wandered into the bathroom a few times as a kid. No, he NEVER even realized (until he was a late teen and my mom mentioned it) that he was circ’d and dad wasn’t! Trust me, the size difference is wow factor enough for little guys, they aren’t going to notice that dad has a little bit more or less skin at the end. (Especially as uncirc’d men retract their foreskin when they urinate and the resulting “look” is almost the exact same).
I can imagine comments about the odd red-headed kid in the family (think the new version of Cheaper By the Dozen) who is always told he was the milkman’s kid or the postman’s kid because he looks so different is going to go through a lot more need for adjustment than a few-seconds look at Dad’s penis in passing in the bathroom!
So, no, I don’t think it’s an unfair argument. If you want junior to look like dad, how come that is the only area in which it is important?
See you guys on another thread. I am cutting out early from the Penis Party. Good times.
army_wife: “I don’t call people names who choose not to circumcise their children and I expect the same courtesy from those on the other side.”
Where you’re off-base is where you think the choice should be yours. If men, later on in life, choose to have this done, then fabulous. But you don’t make a decision like that for an infant.
And, yes, MC does differ from FGM in DEGREE, since in FGM the entire clitoris is removed, whereas in MC a PART of an organ is removed. So they differ in DEGREE, but not in TYPE. Just because one is considered worse than the other does not mean that the latter is harmless or proper fodder for humor.
I would like to point out that nobody here is talking about banning circumcision. However, the CDC based upon flawed research, and several posters based upon their own personal “ewwww” factor have suggested making it mandatory.
If something is going to be mandatory, there had better be really good reasons for it.
If, after careful consideration of all of the medical theories and facts (and recognizing the difference between them and the medical controversies), an understanding that this is not something that can really be reversed, that it is something an adult can always choose to do later if he wants to… if a parent still wants to circumcise their son, they are free to do so!
But if people are going to start throwing around the ideas that MY husband sons are somehow gross, yucky, unclean, unhygienic, more prone to catching an STD or HIV (um, nope, hubby’s never had one and in our lifestyle, should the boys follow what we teach them, no male in this family should ever end up with one) and that that is somehow a reason that I should be mandated into removing what God put there and the New Testament does not command me to remove… they’re going to get an earful.
MaryRose: “I believe the sentiment is more so that in case Junior does see Daddy’s circ’ed penis, his reaction is not to feel that he is somehow wrong or misformed because his doesn’t look like that.”
I can understand a son having questions like that, but let’s face it: at THAT age, a boy is just about as likely to see his mother naked and ask about “that difference.” So we explain that people have various bodies; we don’t need to give the boy or his mother surgery to make them look the same in the bathtub.
Elisabeth,
I guess it’s an individual thing. My brother wasn’t circ’ed and my dad was, and my bro’s now 11. 2 years ago (maybe a year and a half?) he made a comment to my mom about why does his penis look different from my dad’s? (This was after an unintentional walking in on Dad in the bathroom) So I guess it depends on the individual.
I was just saying, it’s not a fair comparison. IF the child DOES notice the difference, it’s possible that they will feel awkward or wrong. While it wasn’t reason enough for me, personally, I can understand why a parent would choose circ in that case.
bmmg,
I agree with you. I’m all about frank and honest answers.
I’m just saying, I understand why a parent wouldn’t feel comfortable with their child being uncirc’ed when the father is circ’ed.
Okay, but based upon your experience, was your brother scarred or upset by that? In addition, do we know that that is the aspect he was asking about? (My brother is older than I am, and we had this discussion after my oldest son was born, not as young teens).
If somebody wants to circ based on that, it’s certainly their choice. But they’re talking about MANDATING it for the rest of us… which is really crossing the line (and yeah, I get sick of how they feel free to make comments about gross and yucky and ewww….)
Ok. One more comment.
I have a friend who has one son cir’d and not the other. The questions from them just keep coming and they are unsure how to answer. The boys know the diff, they see it and they ask about it. There ya go.
bmmg39,
Don’t really care what you think of my husband and his decision about our three boys. But keep being open minded and pleasant, dude.
Elisabeth,
No this should not be mandated!!!
Well, I would think two boys would make for more questions… because 1) they are MUCH closer in age, therefore the differences that would normally be greater than that one difference wouldn’t be so apparent and 2) boys, especially brothers, simply have more opportunities to notice the difference. When they are little they may bathe together. They may share a room. It is when the penis is flaccid that the difference is visible, which is what these boys are going to see on a regular basis between two penises of roughly equal development.
Just thought about this. Have an ex who had a younger brother. He wasn’t circ’d, younger brother was. Mom was a nurse. When the question was posed by younger brother she stated: “You had so much excess foreskin that I felt it was medically necessary to remove it. Your brother didn’t.”
As far as I know the questions ended there.
“I have a friend who has one son cir’d and not the other. The questions from them just keep coming and they are unsure how to answer. The boys know the diff, they see it and they ask about it. There ya go.”
So they figure out how to answer. Why can’t they tell them a simple version of why that is?
“IF the child DOES notice the difference, it’s possible that they will feel awkward or wrong. While it wasn’t reason enough for me, personally, I can understand why a parent would choose circ in that case.”
Parents have to explain differences between people all the time to little kids, whether it’s why their best friend has darker skin or why Grandma is in a wheelchair. Little kids are learning so much stuff about the world that they’re pretty willing to accept answers their parents give them to their questions. You just say, “When Daddy was a little boy, people thought it was good for boys to have some of the skin taken off their penises. By the time you were born, people knew they didn’t need to do that, so we didn’t do it to you.”
Or, if you want to haul in some extra authority, “The doctor said we didn’t need to do that.”
Exactly, Marauder. When I was little, I noticed a strange mark on my mother’s arm. I wondered what it was, so I asked. “It’s where I got my smallpox vaccine.” she said. I wondered why I didn’t have that. She explained to me that smallpox was a problem a long time ago, but it had just about been wiped out in the world by the time I was born, so I didn’t have to go through the painful vaccination she did.
That was good enough for me.
If I had it to do all over again, I would’ve made them leave my little boy alone. :(
OK, I was stating my own PERSONAL preference. My husband is circ’d and I like it that way. If he was not, I’d just have to get used to it and I’d come to like it anyway – I wouldn’t make him get circumcised if he were not (it would be up to him at that point). I stated several times that I did not support circumcision being MANDATORY.
Perhaps I should have kept my own feelings about it to myself, but that doesn’t change them. I wasn’t calling any PERSON “yucky”, I was calling the concept “yucky”. I will take your word for it that men don’t have more hygeine problems than women due to smegma (I wouldn’t know personally), but I had a distasteful concept of intact mens’ circumstances in that way due to negative comments made about it from intact men themselves who said it was a problem for them (I remember one in particular who noticed as soon as ten minutes after showering an accumulation of smegma which smelled offensive to him – didn’t matter how thoroughly he attempted to keep clean).
So I stand corrected on smegma. Perhaps it’s a problem for some, not all. I think part of the reason that some women find an intact penis distasteful-looking is because they are used to seeing the circumcised variety.
Why the obsession about whether I would find YOUR husband to be visually pleasing anyway? I have no desire to see anyone else’s husband’s willy and I really don’t care what your husband’s looks like. Seeing an uncirc’d penis was a shock for me and something I had never seen before – it’s a normal reaction for people to have when first viewing something that looks completely unusual to them. If my husband were intact, then it would have been no big deal to me. I would have already seen one up close and had a chance to be accustomed to it.
That doesn’t change my mind that parents should be given the right to decide whether they think it is beneficial to their sons to circumcise or not. People who say that parents “shouldn’t have that choice” are just as bad as people who say that all boys should be circumcised. Non-circumcision isn’t a religion, folks. It’s not abortion. I didn’t kill my sons. Excuse me for doing what I thought was in their best interest at the time. (yes, that was sarcasm)
I did not circumcise my sons based solely on cosmetic reasons. I did my own research on the issue and at the time, circumcision seemed like what would be best for them. I’ll never apologize for doing what I think is most beneficial to my sons in the long run.
I circumcised my sons. Sorry if that burns you but they’re not your kids. I chose what I viewed was the best thing for them (yes, I discussed it at length with my husband and we were in agreement at the end).
Xalisae, please don’t get too upset about it. You love your son and that’s what matters, regardless of anything else! There’s no use feeling sad over something you can’t change, especially when it was done out of love.
ps: They are just jokes. I am not writing from experience.
Posted by: kbhvac at August 24, 2009 8:17 PM
yeah that’s what they all say, Ken!
sheesh! what a discussion – I’m so NOT getting involved in. ;)
Wow. I never thought stuff like this was that common. Personally I think it’s cruel to make unneccessary decisions for your children which change their physical appearance, and possibly the way their body works/feels. I would never, for instance, put a tatoo on my baby, or peirce my child’s ears unless she agrees to it–and she would have to be old enough to agree. Sure, as parents you’re supposed to help your kids, but let’s do it by teaching them about medical options, please–not chopping off bits of their body, regardless of whether or not you “think it’s best.” I know a few people who “think it’s best” to tatoo their children before their children are old enough to consent–would you agree with that?
Lord, people, children are NOT objects or playthings!!
Abel, sometimes you do have to make decisions based on what you think is best.
My son’s hypospadias could have been left alone, but it would affect his future fertility and make it so he could never urniate in a way that a man would consider normal. We could have waited until he was older, but all of the medical evidence says that it is best to do this sort of surgery as soon as possible. He had his last surgery at right before he turned 4, which is actually relatively late.
He also has an endocrine issue that results in very slow growth. If we did nothing his adult height would be under 5 feet, and he would have very frail bones and poor muscle tone.
We decided to treat his condition, even though it means daily shots. He’s too young to make this decision for himself. When he gets older, we will let him have more input into the decision.
I think it’s really important to remember that most parents are trying to act in their children’s best interest. Sometimes the decisions are really complex.
OK. If fidelity decreases STD risk for heteros, why would it not do the same for homos?
I think it incredible that people would fight against universal health care insurance on the grounds that it MIGHT pay for abortions, when hundreds, more likely thousands, of your fellow citizens die each year directly because of lack of health care.
Why don’t you read Luke 10:30-37 and stop spewing this out-dated, unChristian Old Testament nastiness?
Army_Wife: “People who say that parents ‘shouldn’t have that choice’ are just as bad as people who say that all boys should be circumcised.”
Perhaps you misunderstand. My meaning is that it should be up to the person who might be circumcised whether or not to be circumcised. So it’s up to the boys themselves. Oh, they’re too young when babies to make that decision? Exactly. Let them opt for it when they reach the age of reason (or afterwards), if they really want to.
Thanks for the suggestion that I treat my children as objects and/or playthings, and that I am cruel. I so needed that.
As parents, all we can do is make the decisions we think are best with the information we have at the time.
Does that mean that sometimes we might make a mistake? Yes. My parents made several that had permanent consequences for me. But I still know that they did what they thought was best at the time. We can’t do any better than that. If we end up making a mistake (or several), all we can do is learn from it.
Was it a mistake for me to circumcise my sons? There’s always that possibility, I’m not perfect. The reason I say I am not going to apologize for it is that I truly love my sons and thought I was acting in their best interest at the time. Circumcision has been a cultural norm in this country for a long time. I’m not saying that it’s automatically OK because of that, or that we shouldn’t question it for ourselves, but what I am saying is that there are people like me who were brought up considering it very normal and telling me I’m a horrible mom for doing it to my kids isn’t going to change this ingrained philosophy, being mean about it isn’t going to change anyone’s mind about the actual concept.
I struggle with depression and self-image/esteem issues. I struggle every day with feeling like a personal failure, a bad mother, unattractive, etc. Part of the reason I get hyped up when people tell me I’m a “cruel” mother for doing something for or to my children which I think at the time will be best for them – is because I do not need a depressive episode over the fact that someone thinks I’m the Worlds Worst Mom. I’m sick to death of people telling me that I’m a terrible mother because of something petty. I can’t put my son’s foreskins back, so there isn’t much point in getting really depressed over it, although that’s easier said than done at this point.
It was a decision which was hard for me to make. I had a lot of angst over it and did much thinking about it – figured I had done the right thing in the end. I hope I did and if not it is too late to undo it.
If the baby we are expecting at the moment turns out to be a boy, will I get it done? Well, I don’t know. Perhaps not. Perhaps it might be better to let him get it done later if he wants. I can understand the no-circ people’s point on that front. I don’t think it is right to put a lot of doubt and insecurity into the heads of circumcised men by telling them that they were horribly wronged and are missing out, when there are many men who have had circumcisions as adults and honestly tell that they like it better afterwards. Men have too many doubts already about their penises (size/shape) without other men convincing them there is one more thing wrong with theirs (circumcision). To me, it’s just an extension of the same old garbage men have going on with their penises – feeling inadequate because someone else’s is longer, wider, straighter, points a different way, whatever – now there’s just one more class of men who like to say “well, mine is better because it’s intact, ha, ha!”. Men are just as bad about their penises as women are about their bodies.
I don’t like being made to feel like a monster who needs to go hide in a cave because I circumcised my sons. Seriously, lots of people act like people who circumcise their sons are evil, terrible people who should have their children taken away or something. As if my motivation was so abusive and terrible. I know in my heart that I had nothing but good intentions for my sons and I don’t need to second-guess myself any more than I already do, particularly about something that can’t be changed now.
Posted by: Lauren at August 25, 2009 5:57 PM
Hah. I was just waiting for something like this to be posted.
Okay, you make decisions that benefit your child’s health, right? That completely disreguards the fact that I said “unnecessary.” Circomcision is all about how the child LOOKS; the health benefits of it are a plus, but certainly NOT necessary (in most normal cases, anyway; I would understand having it done if there was something abnormal about the foreskin that would cause the child discomfort/disfigurement).
Since circomcision is all about looks (and don’t smack me with health benefits again, I know thousands of perfectly healthy men who aren’t snipped and stigmatized for it), it should be for the child to decide later in life. Not the parents.
For instance, what if I absolutely hate benig a parent, and decide to sterilize my son, just because I think it’s best and I believe I’m saving him a lot of pain and anguish? Or again, back to the tatoo–what if I tatooed my baby’s face with a religious symbol because I believed it would help in the long run? Or even better–what if I fed my child marajuana, because of the “health benefits” and because I thought it was attractive? Would you agree to all that?
Yes, parents should decide whether or not their children should get surgeries–but I just think it’s wrong to get it done simply because you want your baby to look a certain way.
That’s the kind of thinking that leads to designer babies, actually.
army_wife at August 25, 2009 10:04 AM
THANK. YOU.
100% agreement on all!
Posted by: army_wife at August 25, 2009 6:25 PM
Dude, chill. I’m not saying that men who HAVE been snipped should be kicked in the garbage. Nor that parents who have circomcized their kids should be kicked out there, too.
I got my ears peirced when I was around two years old, and I’ve suffered with infections and pain since then. If it had been my choice, I wouldn’t have gotten them peirced. I also know of a guy who had his right ear peirced when he was younger, because his gay father”s” wanted him to be gay, too. When he was older you could still see the knob where the peircing used to be, and he got hell for it–especially since he was straight. But do I blame my mother? No. And did he blame his parents? No. Because that was a normal thing to do–peirce your baby’s ears. It’s not like they–or you–did it out of malicious intent. All I’m saying is, maybe children aren’t dogs or horses, that we can go ahead and dock their tails because it’s fashionable. I’d be pissed if I’d been male and snipped, to be honest.
army wife, thank you for that very insightful post! I can tell that you’re a great mother — you really care about your children, and it shows.
You said this:
Seriously, lots of people act like people who circumcise their sons are evil, terrible people who should have their children taken away or something. As if my motivation was so abusive and terrible.
I think that the reason people reacted negatively to your post was not because of your decision, but because you began by saying things like this:
I’ve seen pix of uncircumcised penises before and I’d have to say… YUCK. What wife would want that in her mouth with all that smelly smegma under it anyway? The stuff starts collecting immediately after a man showers.
That’s not respectful of uncircumcised men (a considerable number!), people who love uncircumcised men, or people who have chosen not to circumcise their sons. It’s not the respect anyone here or elsewhere deserves, and while it doesn’t warrant you being made to feel like anything less than a caring, considerate mother, it is understandably provocative. Like Lauren said, this is not a simple issue — there is a lot going into it. Culture, religion, information and misinformation, habit, medical needs. It’s important that we all remember that.
I’m sorry if you felt people were unnecessarily cruel or critical of your decision. I don’t like some of the comments on this thread, either. This subject is so difficult precisely because it’s hard to talk about without offending everyone. That’s why I initially asked if anyone had ideas on how to approach the subject with a circumcised man, regarding his future son. There is a lot of emotion involved in this!
Able, you completely missed my point. I was explaining that there are times we sometimes have to make decisions on what’s best for our children before they’re able to tell us what they want.
There are real risks and benefits no matter what a parent chooses. We all act in the best interests of our children with the knowledge we have. This is most certainly an issue where reasonable people can disagree.
I didn’t make the “yuck” comment out of any meanspiritedness to anyone, truly. I just seriously didn’t mean it or see it that way when I said it. I was giving too much of my personal reaction upon actually finding out what an uncircumcised penis looked like, myself, without realizing that it would be taken the way it was.
To me at the time, it was the same as when people say they think it’s “yucky” when men have a lot of body hair. I wouldn’t take that as an insult even though my husband has an abundance of fuzz (I’m OK with that, by the way – but I don’t get offended when people express a preference for a little less fuzz, because I used to feel the same way about lots of body hair on men, until I happened to grow up and fall in love with a man who has a lot – I just see it as a personal preference). I didn’t see it as an idea to get all worked up about, just my own preference. Like how some people like blue eyes better than green, or blonde hair better than red, or a certain shade of skin over another. Everyone has their own standard and idea of what looks nice to THEM, and that’s how I considered the remark.
If I said I like blue eyes better than brown, that isn’t saying that I think people who have brown eyes look ugly – my husband has brown eyes and I think they are very nice (it’s really the expression in the eyes that counts for more than the color, to me). Some people think oral sex is “yucky” in general, others have certain preferences about it (sometimes due to past negative experiences). Some people are too fastidious to really be comfortable with certain sexual acts. If a woman like that said “I think having semen in my mouth is gross”, that isn’t an insult to all men who produce semen. Understand my thought process? Just because *I* don’t have a taste for a certain act, bodily secretion, whatever, doesn’t mean I’m automatically insulting everyone else who has no problem with it, does it, whatever.
Do you understand now that I did not mean any harm to anyone?
In my first post, I said that I thought it should be mandatory because…..I wasn’t being truthful. I was actually just trying to be funny. I’m very sorry if I offended anyone. It wasn’t my intention.
Okay, here’s a thought. I know a lot of you are using the “circumcision under Jewish law”, and if you’re not Jewish, you’re not bound to that law. Like not eating pork.
However…look at it this way. Over and over again in the Old Testament, God gave the Jews commands and laws. The common denominator in most of them was to clean or purify or keep the Jews clean.
In Leviticus chapter 11, the Lord gave a list of UNCLEAN things the Jews couldn’t eat, and many other things they could.
Now I get that….we are not bound by Jewish law. However, if God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, and He gave them these laws to follow because He loved them and wanted them to stay clean, wouldn’t it be beneficial (not mandatory, though) for us to follow the same? Granted, some of the things they COULD eat I wouldn’t touch with a 10-ft. pole! But God didn’t say they HAD to eat all of the things that they COULD eat!
Anyway, a spiritual purity was attached to circumcision in the Old Testament. (uncircumcised lips (Exodus 6:12, 30), ears (Jeremiah 6:10), hearts (Leviticus 26:41). The fruit of a tree that is unclean is spoken of as uncircumcised (Leviticus 19:23)).
So, in MY OPINION, uncircumcised penises are gross to me. And, since I grew up reading the bible, maybe that’s why! Oh, and Jesus was circumcised, too.
There’s my reasons.
Army Wife, you have taken a lot of general comments about how certain “reasons” to circumcise may or may not be valid and used them to construct an entire issue of how people are making you out to be cruel or vicious to your children (when no one has said any such thing)….
But you seem to just now be coming to the recognition that calling somebody else’s genitals yucky and gross might be a little offensive to those people or those who love them? I’m glad you’re coming to that realization… but honestly, it’s that sort of comment that leads to the exact responses you got…
And Lauren, I’m with you 100%. Hypospadias really does HAVE to be repaired, it’s just too risky not to. I guess that at least I, for one, do not consider that in the realm of “things to leave up to the child later”… and I don’t think anyone would consider it to be so. Many people do, however, consider routine infant circumcision something that could easily be handled by a man later, should he choose to do so.
Marie, continuing to post about how gross you find uncircumcised penises is really offensive and I think that as adults we should be moving beyond this.
Romans 2:25-29 “Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.”
From
CIRCUMCISION: THEN AND NOW By: James E. Peron, Ed.D.
“In addition, as it has been pointed out previously, circumcision as practiced in Jesus’ time has very little in common with the medical procedure performed today. The circumcision of Jesus’ day was merely the “Milah”… The original Biblical circumcision of Abraham’s time was a relatively minor ritual circumcision procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond the tip of the glans was removed. This was called “Milah”. It is from this term that the Jewish Religious Covenant circumcision ritual Bris Milah or Brith Milah got its name.
“Following “Milah”, a penis so circumcised would still contain a considerable portion of the foreskin and the penis would have continued to go through its natural development since most of the foreskin would have remained intact. Protection of the glans would still have occurred. The foreskin would not be stripped back off the glans and would naturally separate from the glans gradually as the child matures, much as it would had the child not been circumcised. The sensitive frenulum would not have been disturbed or moved, and the foreskin remaining would continue to cover and protect a substantial portion of the glans, especially when flaccid, and the glans would appear as uncircumcised. There would be minimal loss of sensitivity or intended protection.
“This type circumcision continued throughout the ages and during the time of Christ. The circumcision of Christ would have been this type circumcision as referred to in the bible. Indeed, biblical reference to circumcision is strictly this form of circumcision. It continued into the New Testament. It has been argued that Michelangelo’s David should show David as Circumcised. Interestingly, Michelangelo presented David precisely as he should have appeared following an infant “Milah” circumcision. His glans is essentially covered with only the tip of the glans showing.”
Oh, and circumcision was not given to make a man “clean”. It was given to make a man look down and see the “snip” several times a day to remind himself he belonged to a holy covenant. It didn’t have anything to do with cleanliness… it is covenant.
Actually, I don’t understand it exactly that way.
What I don’t understand is why it’s not OK for me to have a personal esthetic preference on this issue, but OK for someone else to say they don’t like hairy men. As I said, my husband IS fuzzy but I don’t think “them’s fightin’ words” when someone says “lots of body hair is yucky”. I just see it as their personal preference, like a preference for a certain eye color or whatever. I really don’t care a flip whether they like body hair on men or not because it doesn’t MATTER.
I understand now that people were offended but what others do NOT understand is that I didn’t mean it as an offense in the first place, only my first reaction to something and my own personal opinion at the time.
People are offended because I expressed a personal opinion about a man’s penis. Let’s turn the tables. I’m very small-chested. I think I would look better and be more pleasing to my husband if I were about 2 cup sizes larger. Was that an insult to all small-chested women? Hardly. I’m saying that for me, I think that a certain cup size is more attractive. I have a skin condition that most other people don’t notice but because I am a perfectionist I DO notice it and it makes me feel disgusting. Am I saying that all people with this skin condition look disgusting? No. I’ve seen others with it (it’s common) and it’s not that bad looking on others. I’m saying how something makes ME feel.
As I said before, everyone has their own opionion of what they consider “beautiful” or “nice”. I could tell you my preference about anything else under the sun and nobody would blink an eye, but because I have a penis-preference, I’m a bad person and automatically everyone else has a huge right to be insulted?
I’m sorry for those whose feelings were hurt because I didn’t mean to hurt anyone.
One thought – if it were anything BUT a penis (or breasts, or a woman’s vulva) that I was expressing a harmless preference over, I think that nobody would have cared. Aren’t we taking our private parts a LITTLE bit too seriously? To the extent that nobody can have an idle preference? Why are we as a society only allowed to have preferences for things like eye color, hairstyle, hair color, nail polish, etc.?
Posted by: Lauren at August 25, 2009 7:03 PM
Right. No, I got that point. But see, we’re talking about snipping off bits of children for no reason other than looks and very small, if even existant, health benefits (again, marajuana has a fair argument to that), and NOT some kind of operation that could save a child considerable discomfort, which would certainly be up to the parents (remember, foreskin is not a mutation, it’s a perfectly natural occurance). It’s not right, at least in my eyes, to force a decision about looks on someone else, even your children, and especially if it affects the way they function later in life. Simple as that.
Elisabeth,
Please re-read my post an actually read ALL of the words, not just the one’s that rile you up, ok?
hint #1: look for the words, “MY OPINION”, and yes, they were in all caps!
hint #2: re-read the paragraph that stared with: “Anyway, a spiritual purity was attached…: replace uncircumcised with “unclean” and maybe, just maybe you’ll see the point I was trying to make.
hint #3: (well, I’ll just re-write it just for you!) “we are not bound by Jewish law.”
I’m done discussing this issue with you. I’m comfortable with thinking it’s gross not to be, and I’m comfortable with thinking it’s unclean, and I could really give a flyin’ hootinanny about what you think about MY OPINIONS. I’m not going to suddenly think it’s thing of beauty just because YOU think it is. Elisabeth, that’s why they make red cadillacs and blue cadillacs. Get it?
You’re taking this WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY too personally. Maybe you’re not the one who’s comfortable with it.
Alexandra, (Alexandra at August 25, 2009 5:12 PM)
That was the sweetest thing you said! And sooooooo true!
Posted by: army_wife at August 25, 2009 8:37 PM
Oh, that’s all very nice and well, and if you married your husband and he wasn’t circomsized and you preferred otherwise, then that would be a decision between you and him. But we’re talking about children here, with no say in the matter, which is the actual point of my arguement. You prefer circomsized penises, well, fine–but in my view, and this is JUST my view, that doesn’t give you any right to snip off your son(‘s) foreskins before they’re old enough to consent to it, seeing as you will not be the one living with that decision. You won’t be staring at their penises when they get old enough to use them for sexual reasons and/or will most likely NOT be on the recieving end, whereas if your sons have future relationships–well, what if their wives prefer men WITHOUT circomcisions? Sure, it won’t bother you, but it might bother her, just as marrying a man without a circomcision might bother you. And what if, say, you preferred uncircomsized men, and your husband would rather have not been circomsized, but that decision was out of both of your hands?
…Just doesn’t make much sense to me. Yeah, I guess it’s very easy to take private parts seriously–if you’re not the one that’s being tampered with. What if your father shot you up with hormones because he knew you were going to be small-chested, and preferred you several cup-sizes up, like your mother? …Sounds a little wrong, doesn’t it?
Apparently maturity and the ability to see someone else’s side of something is going to escape a member of this group tonight. Have fun, I have homeschool papers to prepare.
classic ad hominem, Elisabeth. Classic.
Posted by: Elisabeth at August 25, 2009 9:44 PM
Why did the rhetoric of the pro-choice side suddenly pop into my head…?
Ouch, people, this conversation is getting a bit overheated.
Circumcision is at this point in time a choice, and as it kills no one and I’ve never heard of a person having post-circ stress disorder because their parents chose to circumcise them, it is at this point in time NOT the most important issue on the table.
Can we not remain united in our fight against abortion? Must we resort to ad hominem, we who observe daily how such tactics simply destroy our own arguments?
Not to sound too hippy-esque, but everybody get together, try to love one another right now! XP
Yeah, Abel, I stated before that I *could* see a point with that. Actually I even stated that I might reconsider my position and leave my next boy intact, if I should have another boy, because of it. If you’ll scroll up, you’ll see my entire comment on the matter.
And MaryRose is right, I *do* have more important things to think about than this.
Oh yes, I just remembered something that I had forgotten to include in my statement above –
Abel,
You misunderstand my reasoning for circumcising my sons. I did NOT circumcise them because of a personal esthetic preference, at all. I considered the appearance to be a side benefit, yes, but the actual main reason I circumcised them was because I believed at the time that there were reasonable health benefits to doing so.
The point I understand better now is the point people are trying to make about letting the boy decide for himself later. The health benefits (or possible lack thereof) of circumcision are apparently still being debated by doctors. I just believed when I had my sons circumcised that there WERE enough health benefits to justify it, that’s all.
Well, I made a valid attempt to bring it back to the topic of this board that was completely ignored yesterday.
Army_wife… I appreciate your willingness to look a bit beyond and I certainly do see your point that your decision was not based on aesthetics. There are valid medical issues that can be discussed… the one the CDC is putting forth is unfortunately not one of them in this case.
Marie, not ad hominem, I really did have papers to prepare and since you weren’t open to admitting you were rude, I saw no point in continuing the conversation. Since I had made the point several times that you were being rude and your only response was that you had the right to make those rude comments as long as they were only your opinion, I failed to see how the conversation could move forward from that point.
Abel, I have no idea what you meant by that statement. If you’re going to try to say that I’m in any way linked to the pro-abortion position you obviously don’t know me at all.
army_wife: I have depression too, and I know how much it sucks when criticism comes in out of left field and throws you off balance. But when it comes to criticizing aspects of people’s body that aren’t purely cosmetic, like body hair, people take offense, especially when it’s something of a sexual nature. “Your genitals are gross” is probably one of the worst physical insults there is, and as you can see, people don’t appreciate hearing it about people they love. Hair is one thing. People cut or shave hair all the time, which is why people usually don’t get really mad if someone says, for example, “I think mullets look gross.” Hair is almost like a fashion accessory that’s attached to your body, but people are much more sensitive when there’s a sexual insult involved. (Which is why “pubic hair is gross” would probably cause the same reaction.)
Plus, the comment about “who would want to put that smelly smegma in their mouth?” wasn’t just about uncircumsised men, it was about their sexual partners, and basically translates into, “anyone who’d want to have oral sex with an uncircumsised man is gross.”
I don’t think you’re a bad parent because you circumcised your son. My fiance’s parents circumcised him and my dad wanted me to be circumcised if I was a boy, though my mom didn’t. I don’t agree with it, but I believe that you had your son’s best interests at heart and did what you thought the right thing was.
Marie: “Anyway, a spiritual purity was attached to circumcision in the Old Testament. (uncircumcised lips (Exodus 6:12, 30), ears (Jeremiah 6:10), hearts (Leviticus 26:41). The fruit of a tree that is unclean is spoken of as uncircumcised (Leviticus 19:23)).”
Wow. Do we really need to go through, again, all the other things in the Old Testament that make us wince (while selectively supporting OTHER parts of it)?
And I would have thought this distinction was obvious, but we’re not condemning every last parent of a circumcised boy. Xalisae is wrestling with this, since it was done to her boy while she was loopy from the birth. Other parents chose to have it done to their son(s) and now have misgivings or at least ambivalence about it. The ones we’re angry at are the ones who casually stated on this thread that “circumcision should be mandatory” because uncircumcised men/boys are just so “YUCKY,” or the ones concocting ridiculous scenarios in which adolescent boys are comparing their penises in the locker room. (Some people apparently get their worldviews from watching PORKY’S.)
Sure, thanks for trying to understand. I did some thinking last night about it (asking myself – why is a statement that seems mostly benign to me, so upsetting to others – what makes me and my perceptions so different?) and the only reason why that I could come up with is because simply that there’s a possibility I was raised differently. We were more relaxed about genitalia and the body in general, perhaps, than other families. I was raised in a large family by parents with an interesting mix of some relaxation regarding different body parts (nothing outrageous, just not all hyped-up about them), and a sense of humor about twice the size of Texas about almost everything in life. My perceptions about it may be different than others, which is something I failed to consider before making certain statements.
I have realized that my comments, although they did describe my knee-jerk reaction to something I regarded as shocking at that moment, were uncalled for to some. Although I didn’t mean to insult anyone, I did, and I am sorry for the feelings I hurt. The fact that I had no bad intentions doesn’t matter, what does matter is that I hurt others by my words, and I was wrong.
Although when I made the comments, I didn’t realize they sounded crappy, I realize that now – but of course as with anything else that is said, it’s too late to take them back. But at least I can still change my heart and mind about it. :-)
Well, I’d better get to work on the plate of crow I have to eat. I hope it’s good with Tabasco.
Try ranch. It’s easier on the stomach. No hard feelings here…
I think it’s cool to be “relaxed” when it comes to the human body. In some parts of the world (even in this country), entire families frolic naked on the beach or in the backyard. Other people don’t answer the door unless their wearing pants, a shirt, and shoes. Neither way is wrong.
The center of the controversy behind THIS issue is that something that is for the most part irreversible has been taking place with small children (and only one gender of small children, which adds to the controversy), something that is in all likelihood painful and unnecessary. In other cultures, it’s practically unheard of, whereas here NOT doing it to a boy was once considered practically unheard of (that’s changing now, of course). When something has been taking place for that long, it naturally happens that people accept it as normal, and it takes some effort to get people to try “looking at it from the outside.” I’m certainly not one who blindly says “we should be more like Europe” with everything, but I do think that if more people took a step back with the circumcision issue they’d think, “You know, this is really rather bizarre…”
Elisabeth,
You’re CHOOSING to be offended by my OPINION.
Think about it.
That’s what people typically say after they offend people.
bmmg39,
yes, when they are trying to show someone that it really is their CHOICE to get upset over someone else’s OPINION.
Try this one: I think facial hair, underarm hair, and leg hair is gross on a woman. I choose to shave it off or hot-wax it off, whereas there are women who choose to not do so. I still think it’s gross, even though it’s natural and God created it.
Now, if Elisabeth or you thinks it’s beautiful and think that I’m being rude for thinking it’s gross…well then, you both would be CHOOSING to be offended. I can’t make you be offended (I certainly don’t have those powers!), and I’m not offended that you don’t think it’s gross and are not thinking the way I am. Why? Because I CHOOSE not to be offended by someone that doesn’t have the same opinion as I.
Ooh, Marie. I like what you wrote.
“Try this one: I think facial hair, underarm hair, and leg hair is gross on a woman. I choose to shave it off or hot-wax it off, whereas there are women who choose to not do so.”
The operative word being “choose.” Earlier, you wrote that circumcision should be MANDATORY, i.e. the children involved don’t get a CHOICE.
I repeat my earlier question to you: if someone thought your clitoris was too large, and wanted to make it mandatory that it be surgically shortened, would you be scheduling the appointment? If you find that question off-color, then maybe you understand why this issue causes people to become angry. Your “to each their [sic] own” argument ends when one person is taking a knife to another person’s body.
bmmg39,
Now, I know you read my post at: (Posted by: Marie at August 25, 2009 7:23 PM), because you commented on the last paragraphs in your post at: (Posted by: bmmg39 at August 26, 2009 11:30 AM).
Now, I ignored your post (listed above) when I read it, because your last paragraph, at least most of it, was the same problem with your latest post.
So please, go back to my August 25, 2009 7:23 PM post and just read the first paragraph. Just the first one.
I agree with you. It shouldn’t be mandatory.
btw, bmmg39, why did you [sic] my “their” in your August 27, 2009 11:23 AM comment?
curious.
Marie,
[sic] is used to indicate incorrect grammar/spelling. Bmmg was saying that you should have written “to each his/her own.”
MaryRose,
Thank you. I was curious as to why bmmg39 thought “to each their own” was incorrect grammar. As far as I know, it isn’t. I’ve been using the phrase for a long time!
I googled it afterwards, and did not find any sites that said it was incorrect. I was wondering if bmmg39 (or you for that matter!) know of any sites that can tell me that I’ve been saying it or writing it wrong for all of these years!
I was under the impression that “each to their own, each to his own, each to her own, to each his own, to each her own and to each their own” are all acceptable. But if I’m wrong I’d like to know!
Thanks MaryRose!
Carla,
Thank you dear!
To be quite honest, Marie, my information on this particular subject of grammar comes from my eighth grade teacher, so I’m not completely certain as to the legitimacy of the correction. My teacher did insist that “to each their own” is incorrect because you’re changing tenses (each – their), and that in order to preserve the flow of a phrase, it would be correct to write “to each his or her own” or “to each his own” or “to each her own”… Again, I don’t know whether or not she was correct.
I simply recognized the reason for the [sic] and thought I’d butt in and clarify for you. ;)
I googled it afterwards, and did not find any sites that said it was incorrect. I was wondering if bmmg39 (or you for that matter!) know of any sites that can tell me that I’ve been saying it or writing it wrong for all of these years!
Colloquially it is widely accepted, but when it comes to strict grammar it isn’t technically correct. English is one of few languages that doesn’t have a gender-neutral singular pronoun that applies to people (ie, the French on, although that’s a filler for a variety of things, ie an equivalent to the passive voice in English, a stand-in for “one,” “we,” “they,” “people in general,” etc). We have “it,” but consider it awkward and impolite to use that for people.
In most courses I’ve ever taken, points would be taken off a term paper for using the “singular they.” But of course there is the thorny issue of what to use in its place, and I am among those who believe that the context is important in deciding this. Outside of the classroom, it’s generally considered okay, though I admit there are certain applications that get my ears perked up in a bad way every time.
Given this subject matter, revolving around male genitalia, “his” is probably fine. Or, if talking about aesthetic preference when it comes to a partner, “To each her own” would also be understandable. The cumbersome and previously-mentioned “To each his or her own” is inelegant, but inclusive and correct.
However, as noted, there is a colloquial and traditional acceptance of “they,” dating back later than most people think — understandable, given that we dropped the Old English neuter singular personal pronoun for some reason, back in the day (along with a lot of other awesome stuff I wish we still had around, but I digress). Jane Austen is a classic example of a respected writer who used “they” and “their” to as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. Other authors did other things — E. Nesbitt, among others, used “it,” as in, “Everyone got its legs kicked or its feet trodden on.”
An interesting article on the endless search for that mythical unicorn of Modern English, gender-neutral singular pronoun: nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-t.html
Bah, E. Nesbit, I meant. My 10-year old self would be very disappointed in me.
MaryRose & Alexandra,
Thank you so much! The verdict is now in. Going forward, I will use his/her depending on the context.
That was awesome! Thanks again!
Marie,
I’m glad Alexandra was there to clarify! My knowledge of the subject is extremely limited… I’m just blessed with a good memory.
Bmmg,
I meant to say this earlier. I have been following this thread loosely, at best, but I saw Marie’s comment regarding her actual feelings about circumcision being mandatory. While I feel that her original comment was poorly written, you’ve clearly set a certain opinion of her and read her comments without really giving her a chance. She already made it clear that she hadn’t meant to offend, and that her comment encouraging mandatory circ’s was meant to be humorous. While it may have been poor humor, or at the least, poorly worded (considering that tone can be very difficult to translate into the written word), Marie’s comment was in jest.
Either read her comments or don’t. If you aren’t going to read them, don’t reply.
No problem, Marie. Like I said, it’s widely accepted in conversation to use the so-called “singular they,” so it’s not a huge deal either way.
MaryRose, I’m blessed with a good memory as well! Also I focused on Old English literature in college, which really clarifies a lot of Modern English grammar to some extent — where we get things like the plural of man being men, not mans, etc. As you can imagine, this knowledge has been vitally useful in daily life, lol.
There is a fascinating Old English poem called The Dream of the Rood. It’s the story of the crucifixion, as told by the cross (rood) itself, to the poet in a dream. The poem contains a blend of pagan and early Christian elements, but in its depiction of Christ as the traditional literary war hero, charging headfirst into battle towards death, in front of his people, it describes Him climbing up onto the cross Himself. My favorite aspect of it is that the cross describes being up there with Christ, both of them pierced with nails; hurting alongside Him, being mocked alongside Him — the two of them together. It seems to me to be a nice allusion to the Catholic view on the value of suffering, and on offering suffering up.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/engl403/dreamtext.htm
He is traditionally the gender neutral pro-noun. I generally use it unless I’m talking about something that is obviously female.
I despise, he/she. UGH it’s horrific. I refuse to use it.
Same, Lauren. I almost always use “he.” In some academic circumstances I use “one,” and in obviously feminine circumstances I use “she.” I think the only thing worse than he/she is s/he. RAGE.
Yes, it was a number-agreement error. Using “his or her” is appropriate in case of a singular pronoun antecedent. Using slashes (“his/her”) can be acceptable, though in any type of formal writing, it can — as an S.A.T. II. Writing book we once used for work said — make anything you write look like the manual to a vacuum cleaner.
Using “he or she” and its sister phrases can get clunky sometimes: “A person should be careful about to whom he or she gives his or her phone number, or else he or she might find himself or herself in a bad situation.” One graceful way to solve the problem in most of those cases (without favoring one gender or the other) is to make EVERYTHING plural: “People should be careful about to whom they give their phone numbers, or else they might find themselves in a bad situation.”
In the case mentioned above, “to each one’s own” is a good way out, although — as has been mentioned — since we’re discussing males exclusively, “to each his own” works, also.